Super ignorant question, but here goes: What are the “novel things” this novel does so well?
When I read this book a couple decades ago, I was just disappointed (spoiler alert) that Daisy and Gatsby don’t wind up together. I’m pleased I’ve gotten sophisticated enough to enjoy the writing of this book so much despite the lack of a happy ending, but I’m not sophisticated enough to understand why it’s so deliciously good.
Very much enjoying listening to this reread. I remember so vividly reading Gatsby for the first time in high school, and just being blown away by the craft of the novel. I didn’t like a single character in it, and the genre was not something I would have necessarily picked out on my own, but I still loved the book. And that was such an important literary moment for me-realizing that great craft, great writing, can overcome the walls of habit/prejudice we all develop as readers.
To me, Nick Carraway's comment "I am one of the few honest people I have ever known" both informs us of him as narrator (as discussed - biased if not unreliable) and, more importantly, the type of people he knows -- so dishonest both to each other and to themselves that they are incapable of seeing the truth thus making Nick feel honest in comparison.
This is my first time reading this book. I am so glad I missed reading it in high school, because I would not have appreciated it. The writing is astounding.
This is a book that I was supposed to read in high school or college but never finished. I found the characters irritating and self-centered and couldn’t relate to them in any way to make this a book I wanted to invest time into reading. Of course, you can’t enter into most literary conversations without someone talking about this book and claiming that it’s possibly the greatest American novel, so I’ve spent the years since then feeling like an outsider and wondering if I missed the point.
I’m hoping you can spend some time helping people like me see why it’s such a good novel. I found your conversations in this first episode around the lost generation and the questions of identity in America to be helpful, and as I keep reading I’ll watch for the quiet contrasting with all the noise, but I’ll take any encouragement you can give along the way to get me to a place where I can enjoy this novel along with the rest of you.
Although I admire the writing of Fitzgerald, I agree with you about the characters. Here is an article by Karen Swallow Prior that provides insight. She can get right to the heart of a story. Spoilers though if you've not finished.
Not at all. That is, not critical of the style or of (as Heidi put it) the deftly put observations in the prose of which even the narrator is unaware. But I like the way she evaluates the the ideas within and holds them up to the Christian worldview. I think she observes more truthfully than Fitzgerald. He is giving us a sense of “lostness” in beautiful prose, and I don't think even he would object to the examination of that outlook and may even welcome it.
I did not like this in high school either and I have not read it since. Reading it now I think I just really didn’t understand it. I could not understand how New York City worked, and I certainly did not understand all the alcohol consumption. I am absolutely loving it now and looking forward to having these great guides deep in my understanding I understand why we teach this in high school but wow 10th grade seems a little young for at least certain southern naïve girls like I was
I think it needs to be taught during the phase of life when life seems meaningless. Those who read it for the first time when they are too young lact the understanding. Those (like me) who read it for the first time when they are too old run out of patience and interest in those who are so self-centered.
I think that phase of life varies for people many people feel it soon after college (e.g., "Reality Bites," "Frannie & Zooey," probably "The Sun Also Rises") others probably go through the stage earlier (e.g., "The Catcher in the Rye") but I think it comes between a younger idealistic phase and an older recognition of ones own limits.
Hello! Great first episode. Here are some thoughts as a third-time reader of the Great Gatsby:
1. I think Nick is an unreliable narrator in the classic sense of the term. As we continue with the book, I submit we will become increasingly aware of the limitations of Nick's account with "reality", and this provokes an increasingly critical analysis of his narration. This disparity between the underlying truths of the story and the narrator's account is exactly one of the things meant by an unreliable narrator.
2. I really struggle with this book. It would never make my top 100. I find all the characters shallow and unsympathetic, so I don't care what happens to them. I find the plot farcically weak—there is no depth to it. The book relies on tight style and writing to carry it along, but I would rather invest my time on authors who don't overshadow substance with their style. I'm hoping this close read will bring me to a greater appreciation of the book!
Bobby B, thank you for articulating my thinking in your #2. I have stated to almost anyone who will listen that, in my opinion, Gatsby is the most overrated book of all time. I agree that the characters are both shallow and unsympathetic but my greatest complaint about them is that they are boring! I don't care about them and I am not even interested in what is happening to them.
In both my previous reads other thna enjoying the writing style, I have thought reading the "Town Tattle" would be a better use of my time. I am hoping the discussions will help me see what others appreciate and I have not but I am not there yet. In the first discussion, I heard a lot about the incredible writing style (which I agree with) and the "lost generation" characters (which I also agree with) but not enough to make me think this is a great (or even good novel).
I would still argue that "Station 11" where I find the characters interesting and motivated, and the "hope for hope" theme more compelling than the boring and unsympathetic characters and "lost and pointless" theme in Gatsby. Please, help me understand why this is a great book!
I’m enjoying this read way more than I thought I would! (hashtag high school reads, right?) It reminds me of being young, in college, “lost”. Heidi, I was also thinking, I’m these characters, or used to be - but not!
I listened to the old episode on these chapters before this one and immediately thought of Wuthering Heights - speaking of love/hate “perfect novel/narrator” hot takes! I had forgotten that it’s on this year’s reading list, and wouldn’t you know it, it’s next! You’re good, David.
So I was busy jotting notes for comparison later (ie. significance of place, characters being “unMOORed” in TGG as Angelina ironically put it!) and look forward to drawing threads from 1847 to 1925 to 2025.
You did realize people would do that, right David? And that now you’ll be called into account for your 7-years-ago self? And the previous hosts as well? Ah the everlasting, all-seeing eyes of the internet and podcasting valley of ashes… We’ll try go easy on you :) And now I’m picturing Sauron with glasses…
Re. this, here we go: was Nick’s drunken hangout with the photographer suggestive of more? I was taken off guard by Adam’s comment on this!
So Sean, is this book to Steve as The Godfather is to Tom Hanks in You’ve Got Mail? “The answer to any question.”
That’s interesting, you see it as a benefit. I def didn’t expect you to re-listen. As a consumer I guess I don’t want to miss or forget anything. I’m a bit of a glutton when it comes to close reads… who knew reading could be a humbling practice!
Haha, Gatsby is very much his Godfather, and it’s very endearing.
I answered another version of your Nick question over on Facebook; I’ll copy my comment here. (The other question was more aggressive, so forgive any edge in my tone.):
Fitzgerald wrote his editor, Max Perkins, very worried that Tom and Myrtle going into the bedroom together was too scandalous and that he may have to remove it. “…in Chap. II of my book when Tom & Myrt[l]e go into the bedroom while Carraway reads Simon called Peter- is that raw? Let me know. I think its pretty nessessary.”
Pretty hard to imagine him sweating over that and not the scene at the end of the chapter if he had anything lude in mind. It’s a non-starter for me, and I dismiss it because its eisegesis rather than exogesis, and may tell Dr. Freud something about the theorists, but can’t tell us much about Mr. Fitzgerald and his book.
I don't know, Fitzgerald is a master and this is a book dripping with subtext and without a wasted word. Completely agree that the imposition of modern mores by extremely annoying people to "claim" greats is tiresome but I think it's all coincidence.
I don't need to point out all of the uh cigars, as Freud would say, just in that section but there are a lot of them, and every picture he mentions in the portfolio is even a dig at someone from the party. I think it's mistake to bask in the subtext the rest of the book but then say oh but not there, ignore that. However, I think it's still a stretch and a mistake to say "see this confirms Nick is gay and thus so is Fitzgerald!" I think it can all be in there intentionally while still nothing "happened" (that to me is the modern imposition, not the insinuations) between them and it's intended as a warning saying don't get blackout or you might end up "going down the elevator" with bad people. What's really struck me in this re-read (probably at least 5) is that it seems borderline teetotaling, which is interesting given what I know of Fitz's bio.
Yeah, I enjoyed reading the comments on the fb page! You’re argument mages sense. The whole idea just surprised me, so I was wondering if I had missed something! I feel like part of reading is the book is trying to understand this upper class society - 100 years later for us - that Nick himself is peaking into. I had also missed his hypocrisy in regard to relationships. So I guess it just felt like a valid question as an amateur reader.
Super ignorant question, but here goes: What are the “novel things” this novel does so well?
When I read this book a couple decades ago, I was just disappointed (spoiler alert) that Daisy and Gatsby don’t wind up together. I’m pleased I’ve gotten sophisticated enough to enjoy the writing of this book so much despite the lack of a happy ending, but I’m not sophisticated enough to understand why it’s so deliciously good.
Very much enjoying listening to this reread. I remember so vividly reading Gatsby for the first time in high school, and just being blown away by the craft of the novel. I didn’t like a single character in it, and the genre was not something I would have necessarily picked out on my own, but I still loved the book. And that was such an important literary moment for me-realizing that great craft, great writing, can overcome the walls of habit/prejudice we all develop as readers.
To me, Nick Carraway's comment "I am one of the few honest people I have ever known" both informs us of him as narrator (as discussed - biased if not unreliable) and, more importantly, the type of people he knows -- so dishonest both to each other and to themselves that they are incapable of seeing the truth thus making Nick feel honest in comparison.
This is my first time reading this book. I am so glad I missed reading it in high school, because I would not have appreciated it. The writing is astounding.
This is a book that I was supposed to read in high school or college but never finished. I found the characters irritating and self-centered and couldn’t relate to them in any way to make this a book I wanted to invest time into reading. Of course, you can’t enter into most literary conversations without someone talking about this book and claiming that it’s possibly the greatest American novel, so I’ve spent the years since then feeling like an outsider and wondering if I missed the point.
I’m hoping you can spend some time helping people like me see why it’s such a good novel. I found your conversations in this first episode around the lost generation and the questions of identity in America to be helpful, and as I keep reading I’ll watch for the quiet contrasting with all the noise, but I’ll take any encouragement you can give along the way to get me to a place where I can enjoy this novel along with the rest of you.
Although I admire the writing of Fitzgerald, I agree with you about the characters. Here is an article by Karen Swallow Prior that provides insight. She can get right to the heart of a story. Spoilers though if you've not finished.
https://religionnews.com/2025/04/09/not-as-advertised-the-false-god-in-the-great-gatsby/
Do you read Karen’s piece, which I like, as critical of the book?
Not at all. That is, not critical of the style or of (as Heidi put it) the deftly put observations in the prose of which even the narrator is unaware. But I like the way she evaluates the the ideas within and holds them up to the Christian worldview. I think she observes more truthfully than Fitzgerald. He is giving us a sense of “lostness” in beautiful prose, and I don't think even he would object to the examination of that outlook and may even welcome it.
Well she’s certainly observing differently, as the critic does.
I did not like this in high school either and I have not read it since. Reading it now I think I just really didn’t understand it. I could not understand how New York City worked, and I certainly did not understand all the alcohol consumption. I am absolutely loving it now and looking forward to having these great guides deep in my understanding I understand why we teach this in high school but wow 10th grade seems a little young for at least certain southern naïve girls like I was
I think it’s taught way too young. maybe seniors. Maybe.
I think it needs to be taught during the phase of life when life seems meaningless. Those who read it for the first time when they are too young lact the understanding. Those (like me) who read it for the first time when they are too old run out of patience and interest in those who are so self-centered.
I think that phase of life varies for people many people feel it soon after college (e.g., "Reality Bites," "Frannie & Zooey," probably "The Sun Also Rises") others probably go through the stage earlier (e.g., "The Catcher in the Rye") but I think it comes between a younger idealistic phase and an older recognition of ones own limits.
Hello! Great first episode. Here are some thoughts as a third-time reader of the Great Gatsby:
1. I think Nick is an unreliable narrator in the classic sense of the term. As we continue with the book, I submit we will become increasingly aware of the limitations of Nick's account with "reality", and this provokes an increasingly critical analysis of his narration. This disparity between the underlying truths of the story and the narrator's account is exactly one of the things meant by an unreliable narrator.
2. I really struggle with this book. It would never make my top 100. I find all the characters shallow and unsympathetic, so I don't care what happens to them. I find the plot farcically weak—there is no depth to it. The book relies on tight style and writing to carry it along, but I would rather invest my time on authors who don't overshadow substance with their style. I'm hoping this close read will bring me to a greater appreciation of the book!
They are certainly shallow—well, except maybe Gatsby—but that doesn’t make them unsympathetic.
As far as the plot being weak, I would argue there is a difference between slim and weak.
Bobby B, thank you for articulating my thinking in your #2. I have stated to almost anyone who will listen that, in my opinion, Gatsby is the most overrated book of all time. I agree that the characters are both shallow and unsympathetic but my greatest complaint about them is that they are boring! I don't care about them and I am not even interested in what is happening to them.
In both my previous reads other thna enjoying the writing style, I have thought reading the "Town Tattle" would be a better use of my time. I am hoping the discussions will help me see what others appreciate and I have not but I am not there yet. In the first discussion, I heard a lot about the incredible writing style (which I agree with) and the "lost generation" characters (which I also agree with) but not enough to make me think this is a great (or even good novel).
I would still argue that "Station 11" where I find the characters interesting and motivated, and the "hope for hope" theme more compelling than the boring and unsympathetic characters and "lost and pointless" theme in Gatsby. Please, help me understand why this is a great book!
I’m enjoying this read way more than I thought I would! (hashtag high school reads, right?) It reminds me of being young, in college, “lost”. Heidi, I was also thinking, I’m these characters, or used to be - but not!
I listened to the old episode on these chapters before this one and immediately thought of Wuthering Heights - speaking of love/hate “perfect novel/narrator” hot takes! I had forgotten that it’s on this year’s reading list, and wouldn’t you know it, it’s next! You’re good, David.
So I was busy jotting notes for comparison later (ie. significance of place, characters being “unMOORed” in TGG as Angelina ironically put it!) and look forward to drawing threads from 1847 to 1925 to 2025.
You did realize people would do that, right David? And that now you’ll be called into account for your 7-years-ago self? And the previous hosts as well? Ah the everlasting, all-seeing eyes of the internet and podcasting valley of ashes… We’ll try go easy on you :) And now I’m picturing Sauron with glasses…
Re. this, here we go: was Nick’s drunken hangout with the photographer suggestive of more? I was taken off guard by Adam’s comment on this!
So Sean, is this book to Steve as The Godfather is to Tom Hanks in You’ve Got Mail? “The answer to any question.”
I purposefully didn’t go back and listen. I don’t remember what we discussed. It’s one of the benefits of re-reading. :)
That’s interesting, you see it as a benefit. I def didn’t expect you to re-listen. As a consumer I guess I don’t want to miss or forget anything. I’m a bit of a glutton when it comes to close reads… who knew reading could be a humbling practice!
Haha, Gatsby is very much his Godfather, and it’s very endearing.
I answered another version of your Nick question over on Facebook; I’ll copy my comment here. (The other question was more aggressive, so forgive any edge in my tone.):
Fitzgerald wrote his editor, Max Perkins, very worried that Tom and Myrtle going into the bedroom together was too scandalous and that he may have to remove it. “…in Chap. II of my book when Tom & Myrt[l]e go into the bedroom while Carraway reads Simon called Peter- is that raw? Let me know. I think its pretty nessessary.”
Pretty hard to imagine him sweating over that and not the scene at the end of the chapter if he had anything lude in mind. It’s a non-starter for me, and I dismiss it because its eisegesis rather than exogesis, and may tell Dr. Freud something about the theorists, but can’t tell us much about Mr. Fitzgerald and his book.
I don't know, Fitzgerald is a master and this is a book dripping with subtext and without a wasted word. Completely agree that the imposition of modern mores by extremely annoying people to "claim" greats is tiresome but I think it's all coincidence.
I don't need to point out all of the uh cigars, as Freud would say, just in that section but there are a lot of them, and every picture he mentions in the portfolio is even a dig at someone from the party. I think it's mistake to bask in the subtext the rest of the book but then say oh but not there, ignore that. However, I think it's still a stretch and a mistake to say "see this confirms Nick is gay and thus so is Fitzgerald!" I think it can all be in there intentionally while still nothing "happened" (that to me is the modern imposition, not the insinuations) between them and it's intended as a warning saying don't get blackout or you might end up "going down the elevator" with bad people. What's really struck me in this re-read (probably at least 5) is that it seems borderline teetotaling, which is interesting given what I know of Fitz's bio.
Yeah, I enjoyed reading the comments on the fb page! You’re argument mages sense. The whole idea just surprised me, so I was wondering if I had missed something! I feel like part of reading is the book is trying to understand this upper class society - 100 years later for us - that Nick himself is peaking into. I had also missed his hypocrisy in regard to relationships. So I guess it just felt like a valid question as an amateur reader.
I guess I need to get my Facebook account unlocked.