I find it hard to explain what I find problematic about it. I wouldn’t say it’s bad, just that it’s not as good as nearly everyone says it is. I see it as largely being about rich people having parties, and a couple of tragic deaths. And while I don’t think that you have to like — or even identify with — all the characters for fiction to work, in this case none of them has any redeeming feature, as far as I can tell.

Technically this is what happens, but it is not a fair summary. You suggest that the novel is petty and superficial!!!!! That’s how the characters are cf ‘careless’. This is what allows the tragic nature of Gatsby to develop. It’s not just two parties and a couple of tragic deaths because: motive is not to show off; G does not enjoy the parties; it’s for his love of Daisy.

‘no redeeming feature’ That’s the point! Characters don’t need to be redeeming to make the point. The point is the shallowness of his society; this is the paradox that G is in. G is aware of how awful soc is and the fact that he ‘beats on’ makes him most endearing/enduring.

Like many American moralists, Fitzgerald was more offended by pleasure than by vice, and he had a tendency to confound them. In The Great Gatsby, polo and golf are more morally suspect than murder.

Myrtles and Gatsby’s death are used to show the true nature of characters by their response to them. Band 2 response ( i.e. D grade ) Taking a critic’s comment without thinking about it! It’s the carelessness that is being criticised here and their lack of morality. Polo is representative of the lax monied classes and the point about the golf is not that it is played but that Jordan is known for having cheated at it so both elements allow this careless class to be exemplified. Gatsby has the capacity to care which none of the others have therefore looks better than them, despite his flaws! Daisy is the Holy Grail here and like that myth is because it is only attainable by the pure of heart. This is the paradox and the irony of the situation as he uses the wrong means, as dicatated by the society in which they lived, to attain his goal and yet ironically his tenacity is his best feature, yet the goal he has set himself is ultimately so unworthy, which acts to highlight how we feel for Gatsby – hence the ending para.

On the page, Fitzgerald’s moralizing instinct comes off as cold; the chill that settles around The Great Gatsby is an absence of empathy.

Lack of empathy is in New York society. Nick and Gatsby are the only ones who show any empathy. Nick’s ‘attracted and repelled’ indicates empathy.

In a literary hostage exchange, I would trade a thousand Fitzgeralds for one Edward St. Aubyn, 10,000 for an Austen or Dickens.

Fitz Gerald builds seamlessly on from the tradition of Dickens ( look at the list of names at the second party and compare to Bleak House or any other of Dickens text) and Austen ( he focuses on what he knows and explores this in considerable detail- just like Austen does). St Aubyn, well the fact that you haven’t heard of him and you have heard of Fitzgerald tells you something!

Of the great, redemptive romance on which the entire story is supposed to turn, he admitted, “I gave no account (and had no feeling about or knowledge of) the emotional relations between Gatsby and Daisy.”

You don’t need to know it. All you need to know is that Daisy considers leaving Tom for Gatsby. Allows the reader to interpret the love for themselves. It is like an impressionist painting where not all the brush strokes are there but you still see the whole and are able to fill in the gaps. The limited form first person narration means that G and D relationship is unknown to Nick. That’s because its about G and not about D. D is the motive for G to become great.

What was Fitzgerald doing instead of figuring out such things about his characters? Precision-engineering his plot, chiefly, and putting in overtime at the symbol factory.

This is necessary cos of a) form, b)structure and the fact that it’s a novella. This is about show not tell.

For me, though, as I think on it some more, the problem with it all (and in contradiction to the last quote above) is the thinness of the plot. The prose is famously poetic in places, and that’s fine; but the real weakness is that there’s almost no story there.

Contradiction to the precision engineering point!!! The whole point is the limited nature of G’s character as this has been shaped by his idolising of Daisy and the fact this all takes place over three months in a very narrow setting.

And that famous last line1? Poetic though it is, when you parse it, it means absolutely nothing at all.

Ulysses! Parsing, this is me here: I am not good at this so Frances may have a more definitive view, but it could be one of the following:

1 a minor sentence following on from the previous comments about the Dutch settlers and being used as a minor sentence to emphasise the point

Or 2 Using ‘so’ as a filler like conversation to give the first person narrative form some point

Or 3 what I think is the most satisfactory explanation. I think it can be parsed as the main clause is the second part where we is understood.
i.e. So we beat on boats against the current ( subordinate clause) (‘we are’: understood) bourne back ceaselessly into the past (main clause).

(Back to the kids) Anyway, it’s what you take from the ending that matters here: G’s hope; the flaws in human nature keeping us back like the current; the enormity of his love like the goal of the green light; the relationship with D being drawn back to her and his past with her; G being ahead of his past, his tenacity and his greatness because of this (cf the timetable).

This is me now!!

I find it hard to explain what I find problematic about it. I wouldn’t say it’s bad, just that it’s not as good as nearly everyone says it is. I see it as largely being about rich people having parties, and a couple of tragic deaths. And while I don’t think that you have to like — or even identify with — all the characters for fiction to work, in this case none of them has any redeeming feature, as far as I can tell.

I cannot disagree with you more. I think Fitzgerald, like both Austen and Dickens before him, has used what he knew to comment on the society in which he lived. Some would go as far as to argue that he foreshadows the Wall Street Crash in his novel. I don’t know that I could agree with, that but what he does do is use the post war hedonism to comment on the lack of morality, particularly as shown in the upper and monied classes. He clearly comments on how far removed America is from the classless, moralistic and pluralistic society envisaged by the Pilgrim fathers and to which he makes several references in the novella. (cf Tom Buchanans opening comments about the need to contain the rise of the coloured classes; the fact that they are referred to as ‘careless people’; and of course the ending).

In fact, many of the references contained in the novel, as Dickens did, refer to real incidents and real people; Wolfsheim and the fixing of the world series; and the corruption of the police force and commissioner are both well documented. The whole focus on the rise of the spectacular show girls and then Hollywood are also taken from the time (cf Josephine Baker and Zeigfeld Follies), as was the need to develop this industry through bonds which will lead to the crash. The similarity to our current financial situation is remarkable (cf Trollope here, can’t remember which novel), and I think this is the point about the whole novel: the fallibility of human nature, despite or in Gatsby’s case because of

Like many American moralists, Fitzgerald was more offended by pleasure than by vice, and he had a tendency to confound them. In The Great Gatsby, polo and golf are more morally suspect than murder.

No I think that he uses these as devices to allow him to comment on his subject matter very quickly. Polo to me signifies money to burn and harks back to the lifestyle of the East ,i.e. Europe which Fitz. regards as morally effete. If you look at all the references to East and West you will see how he uses this almost as a sort of short hand for what he believes are possible representations of character: West signifying the pioneering spirit which he finds admirable; East the more ‘civilised’ and ultimately more morally corrupt. Ironically, as this boundary moves ever onwards, what was ‘West’ becomes more and more ‘East’ like in outlook and behaviour. So does that mean that we should stop moving forward; or stop trying to better ourselves; or give up our high ideals or our need to explore and ‘boldly go’? No, and that is what Gatsby represents.

On the page, Fitzgerald’s moralizing instinct comes off as cold; the chill that settles around The Great Gatsby is an absence of empathy.

Agreed. But the question is are we meant to like them? The answer is no. The only person who is possibly worthy is Nick as he is the one who is most changed by his experience. He is the only one who learns, but even he is flawed ( he has ditched the girl he was due to marry; he allows himself to be drawn into situations he does not want to be in.) It is he who we see most of and it is his journey which rather like Marlow in Heart of Darkness that is used as a focusing device. Just like Conrad uses Kurz and has Marlow comment “ the horror , the horror” and we can see the heart of the novel, Fitzgerald uses the journey that Nick goes through to understand that Gatsby is’ better than the whole damn lot of them’. To me it is this infinite capacity for hope

In a literary hostage exchange, I would trade a thousand Fitzgeralds for one Edward St. Aubyn, 10,000 for an Austen or Dickens.

Spurious! I believe Fitzg builds on this very tradition. E.g. Hardy doesn’t give you all the details for how the Mayor of Casterbridge gets there, he just does. Fitzg does the same with Gatsby but in even less space! St Aubyn comes nowhere close. However, the main prob with this is the comparison is to novelists and this is a novella. Of necessity there is a need for short hand and compression which he does magnificently. Another comparison might be de Maupassant for his skilful use of detail

Of the great, redemptive romance on which the entire story is supposed to turn, he admitted, “I gave no account (and had no feeling about or knowledge of) the emotional relations between Gatsby and Daisy.”

That’s because it just is! That’s what makes Gatsby soooooo different and amazing, thinking he has found his holy grail and being deluded by it and yet never giving up. That’s all that you need to understand !

Well, what do you think?

As to boycotting, as I thought I made clear above (but realise that I left it ambiguous), I’ve avoided Murdoch publications and broadcasts since they helped Thatcher get (re-)elected. The Sun’s switch to Labour in 97 did not redeem them in my eyes.

Even if I thought they had genuinely changed their ways, it would, I imagine, be harder to buy their stuff than it was to start buying South African wine after Apartheid ended. Some revulsion, though learned (even chosen) goes deep.

For example, before I would touch the Evening Standard I’d have to see a grovelling apology to the McCanns, on the front page daily for a month, along with the resignation (and optional suicide) of the offending editor.

God, papers make me sick sometimes.

The figures are in the documents at: http://www.ico.gov.uk/news/currenttopics/whatpriceprivacynow.aspx which are about the unlawful trade in confidential personal information.

I think that the GMG offenses all relate to The Observer.

BTW, I use Jim almost all the time.

Jim.

1. Like not paying his taxes.

2. Like being a hypocrite (see 1.)

3. Like being a liar - see http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100171491/ken-livingstone-an-apology/?utmsource=dlvr.it&utmmedium=twitter

Jim