Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

I recently re-read this novel as a RL book group choice. I first read it in my teens a long while back.

 

Despite the fact there was nobody likeable, with the possible exception of the narrator Nick, the story and the setting and the quality of the writing really engaged me.

 

I liked how through the narrator Nick we get to know the truth about Gatsby in a piecemeal fashion, adding to his mysteriousness: how he made his money and also the background to his relationship with Daisy. His feelings about her were the most honest emotions in the novel. More honest than Daisy’s I felt. Dishonesty in various forms - emotional and criminal – is a major theme.

 

I thought the author conveyed very well the superficiality and carelessness of the smart set who frequented Gatsby’s mansion. You get a glimpse of what they’re like quite early on when Nick makes his first visit to Tom’s place – both Miss Baker and Daisy have different sorts of affectations, one with her contrived haughtiness and Daisy with her absurd little laughs and fluttering. In contrast Nick makes no bones about Tom being thoroughly unlikeable. Tom, besides anything else, is a two-timing hypocrite. But he and Daisy both are accused of being ‘careless people'. As Nick has worked out 'they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made...'.

 

The ending is sad and pointed when none of these smart people come to Gatsby’s funeral (except the man who'd been in the library) despite Nick trying to drum up some support.

 

The music and the alcohol and the glittering lights of the gatherings at Gatsby’s are evoked very well and the almost desperate gaiety. The reality is sordid. The American dream is a very mixed bag.

 

Like Kimberley I really admire this novel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now read this book 3 times, the first in High School (it's a standard high school text in the United States), the second when one of my children read it for school (proving that it's still a standard text), and this time for a book club where I make an annual appearance because a good friend of mine hosts it.  This was the first time that I got anything out of it and I liked it better for that.  But I didn't love it, in contrast with the everyone else who read it for this book club.  Their discussion was the most active one they've had since I've been making my annual appearances.

 

I had always found both Gatsby and Daisy to be total ciphers, but I've decided that that was on purpose.  Gatsby has so thoroughly reinvented himself that it's hard to tell who he really is except that he undertook all of that reinvention in order to win Daisy away (in his view, back) from her husband.  He rightly concludes that Tom's money is what was attractive to Daisy, but fails to realize that Tom's social standing is, too.  And Gatsby will never be able to have that.  He can be rich and a war hero and say "old sport" all the time, but he will never be one of them (although his children could have been--see next paragraph).  He's just so West Egg when Tom and Daisy are East Egg.  Daisy knows that, which is why she marries Tom.  I can't fault her for her decision because she had so few options.  That's why she was so sad about having a daughter.  A daughter is stuck with the same choices she is stuck with.  This is one of the things that makes me believe that Daisy had strong feelings for Gatsby, even though she didn't run off with him when he wanted her to.  She didn't think she had the choice.

 

It's hard for me to understand why Gatsby is so crazy about Daisy to be honest, but at least some of it, again, is that she has the social standing he so desperately wants.   This is often described as a very American novel and I think that that's why.  There are plenty of people in the United States who came from nothing and became something very rich.  The first generation is self-made and possibly a bit rough around the edges, but the ones after that have been raised to be part of the Daisy and Tom level of society.  The Kennedys are a good example of that, but most of the families that made a lot of money in the late 1800s and are now considered "great" American families had a history like that if you go back far enough.  And often the money was made through criminal activities.  

 

Tom is really a complicated character.  He is clearly used to his entitlements and doesn't brook any interference.  The casual way he broke Myrtle's nose was shocking.  She has high hopes for her relationship with him, but they are foolish.  She'll never get anything from him.  He recognizes that Gatsby is in no way a threat to him, even if Gatsby does not.  And he's right.  He's a very casual racist, but I think most people were then.  Every now and then, though, he sees glimpses of the costs associated with his world view and he at least stated that he would mend his ways in order to keep Daisy.  I think if he hadn't shown some tiny bit of humanity, he would have seemed like an exclusively bad character and Fitzgerald didn't want that.

But he was involved in an important way with each of the deaths that close the book.  His affair with Myrtle is what made her run out to the car.  And he's the one who told Myrtle's husband that the car was Gatsby's in order to get Gatsby out of the way.  He's not even embarrassed about it.  And Myrtle's husband kills himself because of the heartbreak over his wife's infidelity and death, both of which were tied closely to Tom.

 

 

One of the book club attendees last night teaches Advanced Placement American History and he has his students read this book when they get to the post WWI era.  They are all excited and want to have a Roaring 20s party and then they read and discuss the book and realize that it isn't all about how much fun the Roaring 20s were.  Fitzgerald was an expatriate at the time and it's pretty clear in this book why he decided to leave the United States.  Apparently, that's true in his other books as well.  I know lots of people who just love his writing, but I'm not one of them.  Interestingly, that's also how I feel about Hemingway.  I just can't connect.  I think some of it, though, is that I resent that this is the book that everyone reads in high school these days, when Faulkner's books are no longer part of the standard curriculum.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just finished this and I enjoyed it.  I loved Fitzgerald's prose and the story. My copy says on the back that it's one of the great novels of the twentieth century, I'd argue with that.  It was a nice short story and I enjoyed it.  

 

I'd take Faulkner over Fitzgerald any day, but then I'd take Faulkner over every body any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Flingo
      Rescued Thread When Bill has caught up with some things, please can we have the forum for this back, and then get it moved? Cheers!



      Flingo 8th June 2006 11:06 PM

      I thought in Bill's absense we could start a couple of threads about Holes here and have the discussion that so many people are keen to do before we forget what we want to say. It should be able to be moved once the new board is open, shouldn't it?

      So what are people's first impressions? I know some people have finished it - but please remember anyone could call in here, so spoiler if necessary!

      I really enjoyed Holes. My children's librarian mentor has been urging me to read this for ages but I had never got round to it, and am now really disappointed that I left it so long!

      It's really clever, although it takes a bit to understand where all the threads of the story are going.

      The writing is so easy to read, and you feel drawn in almost immediately. I could felt the heat of Camp Green Lake radiating out of the book - a huge acheivement!



      megustaleer 8th June 2006 11:34 PM

      I read it some years ago, and loved it. I really don't know why it has not been a bigger hit as a 'crossover' book. I thought that the way all those plot threads were neatly tied up was just so satisfying, and so clever!

      Have just checked my reading list, and it is six years since I read it, and I can still remember quite a lot of it; it really made an impression!



      katrina 9th June 2006 06:02 PM

      Hey, this is my second read of this book in a year, as I had to read it at the start of my PGCE course, its a really popular keystage 3 yext. I prefered it this time around, the first time I was annoyed by it, but I can't remember why now.

      Thought the writing was good, and the sense of the lake and the heat were well depicted.



      Momo 9th June 2006 06:20 PM

      I can well imagine that it's six years since Meg read it. My oldest son read it when he was a year younger than my youngest one is now and he is five years older. It had just come out otherwise he would have done it earlier as my younger one has.
      Anyway, even though both my boys had read it, I never did so myself. Somehow it always seemed like a book for little boys. So, I was pleasantly surprised when it wasn't that at all. (We even have the DVD and I never watched that either!)
      I will recommend this book to anyone. It's a quick read, yet very interesting and there is a lot in this. More than last month's read.



      katrina 10th June 2006 08:30 AM

      I was wondering if anybody had watched the film version of the book, if I have time this week I'm going to borrow it from school and take a peak at it, I've heard its quite a good adaptation



      Flingo 10th June 2006 10:45 AM

      I picked it up on Wednesday, and will be watching it tomorrow.

      I think we ought to have a thread about the film in this section, so that we can discuss comparisons and similarities? Whoever watches it first can start that!



      megustaleer 16th June 2006 08:56 AM

      belweb says on another thread that she thought the plot was full of holes! I beg to differ! The thing that I like about this book is that there are no 'holes', everything is all neatly sewn up at the end!

      Admittedly a lot of the connections are contrived, but I thought that was part of the humour of the book. My reactions were along the lines of 'Well I Never!! and 'Who'd've Thought It!' , and I thought it was all very cleverly brought to a satisfying (if not necessarily satisfactory) conclusion.

      I wouldn't have accepted the neat conclusion in a serious adult novel, but 'Horses for Courses', eh? And there's plenty of food for thought in there, too.

      The book probably suffered from being read in the middle of reading for an Eng. Lit. degree. I'm sure it wouldn't stand comparison to the other books occupying belwebb's thoughts.



      Momo 16th June 2006 01:45 PM

      I don't know either what kind of holes belwebb saw in this novel. As Meg already mentions, and we all should consider this, this is a children's book. We cannot expect deep meanings that you will only understand after studying English Lit.



      belwebb 16th June 2006 05:28 PM
       
       
       
      Yes, you've made some valid points. However, when you say 'contrived' I think that's the word I should have used - it was incredibly contrived, but then, like you say, I was in the middle of an English lit course!



      elfstar 16th June 2006 06:38 PM

      I enjoyed this book, it had a nice 'roundness' to it,there was no unhappy or unresolvesd ending for the protagonist, the characters were not as deep as they could have been but it is a childrens book and a such it was very acceptable



      donnae 19th June 2006 11:17 PM

      I really enjoyed this book. I loved how the story of the past was neatly interlinked with Stanley's story. Contrived maybe, but very enjoyable still. At least it ties up a lot more ends than last month's read!
       


      As this was a children's story, I liked the manner in which the anti-racialism was dealt with, not too heavy-handed. There were some obvious morals going on in the book, but they didn't overshadow the story.

      There is a sequel to Holes called Small Steps. This follows the lives of Armpit and Xray.

      Holes is a book I will be encouraging my children to read - I think they will all enjoy it. One of my daughters has watched the film and enjoyed it. Flingo, have you watched it yet?



      Adrian 20th June 2006 01:50 AM

      I was thinking the same thing, donnae. It's pretty obvious when you read it.



      megustaleer 20th June 2006 09:34 PM

      Because it is a children's book, and apparantly a straightforward account of Stanley's misadventures, perhaps there is a tendency to whiz through it without picking up the clues?

      Once you know how it all fits together, of course, a lot of it was clearly hinted at in advance.

      Hindsight's a wonderful thing!



      Adrian 20th June 2006 09:52 PM

      I certainly did that, not giving the book its due respect and racing through it. I'll have to re-read it, or maybe listen to the audio version.



      Flingo 23rd June 2006 08:47 PM
       
      I did watch it - though it was really nicely done. Louis Sachar actually wrote the screenplay, which I think helped keeping it true to the book.

      Recommend watching it if you enjoyed the book.
       
    • By Adrian
      This is for people who have read just the first few chapters. If you haven't yet, reading the following will be a spoiler.





      I watched the R&J review and have bought the book. So far I'm maybe a dozen pages into it.

      I'm not loving the double first-person narrative. It reminds me of Kevin Sampson's Outlaws, where the same story is told from multiple viewpoints. I find it just detracts from the story, and makes the book feel a bit gimmicky. Maybe it'll grow on me as I read more, and it certainly won't stop me reading it.

      Secondly, I'm not yet buying into this "Chrono-Displacement Disorder" plot device. It's too Sci-Fi for my liking, and just too "handy" for the author: "I need to have the guy time travel, so here's how I've made it happen." I'm hoping it's resolved later on. If it's a premise I have to swallow just so the book could be written I'll be disappointed.

      As you might have guessed, I'm not wholly convinced just yet.

      What's your first impressions of the book?
    • By Adrian
      I'm about halfway through (he's spending Christmas with her family and has just found out her Mum's a manic depressive - and after reading this book, love, so am I), and unless I get I get some positive feedback here, I'm giving up.

      I posted my first impressions earlier, and I'm afraid it's getting worse.

      Firstly it didn't grab me from the start and I read other books inbetween - always a bad sign. Still, I vowed to stick with it, and once I got past the awkward narrative structure it improved. The enforced double-narrative seemed a little contrived, and I felt whenever the authour switched voices in mid-scene Niffenegger was really forcing the change of voice to make it obvious it was now the other person narrating. Seemed a bit like Kevin Samson writing in Outlaws, where each narrator gets his own unique voice.

      Secondly, the basic premise of the novel, time travel, is mishandled and cack-handedly written. Two versions of himself in the same time frame? (Believe me ladies, if we could do that to ourselves the human race would be extinct). Some evolutionary mishap in the human genome being allowed to rewrite the laws of physics? Those I could live with, but TTW is just an affront to basic common sense. I keep asking myself questions instead of losing myself in the book. Why just appear now? Why just disappear now? More important is the where? How does he go to a particular place as well a particular time?

      Also, the nastiness of the bloke: "I can't help myself so I can do whatever I like." Beat people up? Sure! Rob and steal? Why not! Buy stocks cheap? Who wouldn't! Run naked through the neighbourhood? Well, I tried this, and the police would just not believe my story!

      Most importantly, I don't care about the love story. So he loves her and they love each other, and so forth. I find both of them so insufferable that I don't care about their relationship(s).

      I'm half-heartedly interested in the secondary goings on. I like Kimy, and I like Clare's room-mate, but can't stand the room-mate's boyfriend.

      My current thinking is, "This is not a book to tossed away lightly. It is to hurled with great force."

      I'd like either an incentive to finish it (bearing in mind I have a long list of others waiting on my TBR pile) or, preferably, a precis of the ending. I'm guessing she dies of some disease he can't prevent, and he knows it (of course he knows it, he just can't get involved in any ethical situation that would ruin the house-of-cards plot), but doesn't tell her.

      God, I hate them both. Hey Audrey, try going back in time before Stephen Fry wrote Making History.
    • By Mad Dog & Glory
      Having finally finished The Time Traveler's Wife last night (yes, I know, I'm a bit behind), I was left feeling a little dissatisfied. I loved it for around 200 pages, but then I thought it tailed off badly and left a lot of unanswered questions. Not only the time travel - I had no problems with suspending disbelief, although the most unbelievable part was that they were allowed to lead a 'normal' life, rather than Henry being captured and studied by the US government.

      It's the so-called 'normal' life that concerns me. It seems incredible that I could read a 500+ page novel centring almost exclusively on two characters, and at the end not really have much of an idea of each other's personalities or how they went about their daily lives. At one point, Henry buys a lottery ticket knowing the result and wins several million dollars, so Clare can have a studio. No other mention is made of this. So are they millionaires? They seem to live in normal-sized house, in a normal street. So what do they do with themselves when Henry isn't time travelling? They're not watching TV, as Henry can't. They can't spend all of their time in bed.

      The other huge problem with the novel is lack of conflict, which is essential to all drama. Henry and Clare have this 'perfect' relationship, and are only unhappy with each other over the miscarriages. There were all sorts of potential themes and conflicts that Niffenegger shied away from. Why does Clare never question the fact that this man came into her life at the age of 5 and, as they say, ruined her for other men?
      Niffenegger seems so intent on making this the perfect love story that she misses a lot of tricks.

      My guess is that Audrey Niffenegger will be a one-hit wonder. She came up with a brilliant idea, and also came up with a good structure (although some disagree), and played out every permutation of time travelling possible. But in the end a great idea can get you only so far, and I don't feel she has the skills as a novelist to get as much out of the story as was potentially there.
    • By babelbel
      I know that there are still people out there reading this but I thought it might be good to round up the general impression the group had of this book.

      So here is the poll to gauge whether it gets the or the or even the
×
×
  • Create New...