Wuthering Heights and The Great Gatsby

[NEEMAN]

I think that in literature, it is perhaps inevitable that critics will often prefer different books to casual readers, simply because of the demands of literary criticism. A literary critic has to look at a book in much the same way an art critic has to view a painting. It isn't a question of how accurately you paint something or how nice it is to look at; a critic has to assess it in different terms.

I think this is where the great critic/reader divide originates. Close analysis of the themes and ideas in a book can often lead you to have a totally different perspective on the piece, so that a work which might have been highly enjoyable if it were simply read becomes more circumspect when analysed. I love Pride & Prejudice, but analyse it from a marxist standpoint, a feminist standpoint, etc etc, and your view of it does change.

I'm not supporting or defending this kind of literary criticism (there's a lot to be said for reading a book without reading into a book), but I just thought I'd put that out there.

[mayneverhave]

I think this is where the great critic/reader divide originates. Close analysis of the themes and ideas in a book can often lead you to have a totally different perspective on the piece, so that a work which might have been highly enjoyable if it were simply read becomes more circumspect when analysed. I love Pride & Prejudice, but analyse it from a marxist standpoint, a feminist standpoint, etc etc, and your view of it does change.

I'm not supporting or defending this kind of literary criticism (there's a lot to be said for reading a book without reading into a book), but I just thought I'd put that out there.

Reading deep into a book and reading a book from a Marxist, or feminist standpoint are not necessarily connected.

Often, critics will simply take an aesthetic approach to a novel/poem, whatever, that reads deeply enough into a work from a dramatic, linguistic, or thematic angle. This does not always involve reading from a perspective, and if anything, reading from a perspective that isn't called for by the work itself is detrimental. Do not bring your own theories to a work, let the theories arise from the work itself.

I can't help but cringe every time I see someone try to connect Troilus and Cressida, or the Iliad, to the Iraq war.

[NEEMAN]

I avoid reading books from given perspectiveson my first read, but we're often forced to do so at university when doing essays etc. Whilst many critics don't necessarily analyse the whole text from a single perspective, I often see book reviews dipping into these 'presets' in their reviews in places (happens with film a lot too). I agree with you 100% though: some of the links critics try to make between politics, history and literature are 'jaw to floor' stuff.

[JBI]

Honestly - lets not get into this - many people hear only know contemporary literary criticism from a Harold Bloom viewpoint. I know many, lets say, feminist critics, and to suggest that they do not read for aesthetic objectives would be to do them disservice. There is a difference between reading a book, and writing criticism on the work. All these "viewpoints" you mention are just ways to write criticism, to write about the work, not necessarily the way a person reads a book.

[Virgil]

The impression I got, when I first read the novel, was that Fitzgerald was writing prose just as I would in the given situation. His word selection tends toward perfection, to the degree that you begin to understand why the novel is so short.

It's not just the word selection. It's the balance and rhythm of the sentences that are perhaps the best in English for the entire century. The great Gatsby may not be the best American novel of the century, but it's pretty darn close, and the prose style is the frankly in my opinion the finest. Hemingway gets dull and Faulkner is extreme, but Fitzgerald is the one you want to model your prose on.

[Emil Miller]

I avoid reading books from given perspectiveson my first read, but we're often forced to do so at university when doing essays etc. Whilst many critics don't necessarily analyse the whole text from a single perspective, I often see book reviews dipping into these 'presets' in their reviews in places (happens with film a lot too). I agree with you 100% though: some of the links critics try to make between politics, history and literature are 'jaw to floor' stuff.

At the risk of causing much hand wringing and foot stamping. Of course you are "often forced to do so at university." It's part of the liberal/left brainwashing that has been going on in universites for years. When lecturers seek to teach literature from a particular socio/political stand point they undermine the very concept of intellectual objectivity. Unless, of course, they are presenting it from the standpoint of avowedly political writers such as George Orwell.

[mortalterror]

Did Scott Fitgerald use Wuthering Heights as a basis for his The Great Gatsby? Fitzgerald was well up on English literature and he almost certainly came into contact with Emily Bronte's novel.
The storyline is remarkably similar as both Heathcliffe and Gatsby are poor and are forced by circumstances beyond their control to leave the great love of their lives. They both return some years later having become self-made men only to find that in their absence their lovers have married someone else.
At that point the storylines diverge but the totally obsessive love that they feel for the heroines is the raison d'etre of both books.

Actually, I believe that The Rise of Silas Lapham was the great American novel of the last century when Fitzgerald attended Princeton. I remember reading it in college and thinking, "So that's where he got all of that stuff." However, in spite of the huge strides it took for naturalism, it's actually a rather dull book, with none of the stylistic flare which Fitzgerald would later become associated with. From what I remember of This Side of Paradise, he mentions being blown away by Euripides, Gilbert and Sullivan, and I believe George Bernard Shaw. Carlos Baker mentions in one of his biographies of Hemingway a conversation where Hemingway admits patterning his style on Sherwood Anderson and Fitzgerald confessed he had largely stolen his own from a popular novelist of kids adventure stories. I forget the name.

Without having finished Wuthering Heights I can't say much about what structural elements Fitzgerald could have borrowed for Gatsby. The first chapter was quite good and jived well with the novel's reputation. The second chapter was very weird, grotesque, gothic even and I set the book aside to read later, but never returned. I'm sure it's very good, though it's probably not to my taste the way that Gatsby is.

While I think that of the two Hemingway was the better writer, Fitzgerald still wrote the better book. Anyone who limits the grandness of his novel to the regional fruits of a bygone decade is sorely mistaken. Having read widely, I tally this work with other short masterpieces of equal merit such as Pere Goriot, Madame Bovary, or Heart of Darkness. It is not quite as wonderful as Moby Dick, but it has none of that books terrible flaws.

Sorry, misread - either way though, the book is essentially in existence today because of critics - I think the American ones anyway, have done a lot to keep it alive.

I would agree with you, if you were referring to the works of Joyce.

[JBI]

No, the book was "rediscovered" after Fitzgerald's death, and saved from the clutches of non-existence by a group of American critics, who started to realize the book as more than the flop it was viewed as on first publication.

Perhaps not as forgotten as, lets say, Moby Dick, the book nonetheless disappeared from the consciousness of readers for some time, until critics started praising it.

[mortalterror]

No, the book was "rediscovered" after Fitzgerald's death, and saved from the clutches of non-existence by a group of American critics, who started to realize the book as more than the flop it was viewed as on first publication.

Perhaps not as forgotten as, lets say, Moby Dick, the book nonetheless disappeared from the consciousness of readers for some time, until critics started praising it.

You mean like The Sound and the Fury?

[JBI]

You mean like The Sound and the Fury?

Perhaps, though Faulkner's fame didn't die after he died, but went on a constant scale upwards. Fitzgerald on the other hand was remembered only in part for his works now seen to be inferior.

I'm of the mind that his only good work was Gatsby, and the rest was rather meh. That is a minority opinion, but I think most agree Gatsby to be his strongest by far. The reputation of the book though, rests on the influence critics had on reviving it.

Faulkner had lukewarm reception at the beginning of his career, but eventually critics brought him to stardom in his own time. Fitzgerald had the status early career, but eventually fell so out of favor that he needed reviving.

Of course, one could say that the reception on first publication by critics wasn't too bad, and his friends apparently liked it, but in terms of sales, the book flopped.

[mortalterror]

Perhaps, though Faulkner's fame didn't die after he died, but went on a constant scale upwards. Fitzgerald on the other hand was remembered only in part for his works now seen to be inferior.

I'm of the mind that his only good work was Gatsby, and the rest was rather meh. That is a minority opinion, but I think most agree Gatsby to be his strongest by far. The reputation of the book though, rests on the influence critics had on reviving it.

Faulkner had lukewarm reception at the beginning of his career, but eventually critics brought him to stardom in his own time. Fitzgerald had the status early career, but eventually fell so out of favor that he needed reviving.

Of course, one could say that the reception on first publication by critics wasn't too bad, and his friends apparently liked it, but in terms of sales, the book flopped.

Faulkner lived to be 65. Fitzgerald had a heart attack and died at 44. Both writers books languished for similar periods of time. Faulkner got an artificial fame injection when he won the Nobel Prize, whereas Fitzgerald's books had to succeed on their own merits. If Fitzgerald had lived another twenty years, he would have seen his books come back into vogue, and I don't think a Nobel Prize would be out of the question either. This Side of Paradise was pretty great, nothing like Gatsby though, and his short stories were also pretty good. Having read his unfinished novel The Last Tycoon I thought he was well on his way to a comeback. I think it's fair to say that the only reason Fitzgerald isn't as highly regarded as Hemingway and Faulkner today is because he didn't have enough time to write as many books and his reputation rests on a relatively small ouevre.

[JBI]

Oh, I don't doubt his genius, but lets be honest, his current position is because of Gatsby, which is easily his masterpiece, and one fantastic book. I have read his others, with the exception of the Last Tycoon, and I agree they are good, but really are nothing, when considering the brilliance of literature coming out of the early 20th century in America.

What could Fitzgerald have accomplished if he lived longer? Who knows - the Last Tycoon would probably have been good, but everything else is relatively irrelevant for discussion, since it is just guesswork. I merely wanted to imply how his novel's status was essentially built on the backs of the critics, and not on the general public, who at first, completely ignored the book.

[Tallon]

I prefer Tender is the Night to Gatsby. An English Lecturer i'm acquainted with agrees. Though, i'm certain we're in the minority.

[mayneverhave]

and his short stories were also pretty good.

I have trouble agreeing with you here. His short stories seem written wholly with the intent of earning money. Not that writing for money is a detriment to artistic credibility (i.e. in Shakespeare's case), or that a writer's intent factors into an analysis of a given work - but in the case of Fitzgerald's short stories, I think it shows. They are infinitely inferior to Gatsby.

Mortal, I tend to agree with you. Hemingway is the superior writer, but Fitzgerald's works surpassed Hemingways. This I attribute to Gatsby. The Sun Also Rises and A Farewell to Arms raise Hemingway to a level above Fitzgerald - Hemingway was a superior writer, but Gatsby is greater than Hemingway.

For this, I take JBI's side. Gatsby is terrific, and Fitzgerald's reputation stands atop it. Unlike Mortal, however, I enjoy both Hemingway and Joyce - not that I want to start a Ulysses debate..

[mortalterror]

I have trouble agreeing with you here. His short stories seem written wholly with the intent of earning money. Not that writing for money is a detriment to artistic credibility (i.e. in Shakespeare's case), or that a writer's intent factors into an analysis of a given work - but in the case of Fitzgerald's short stories, I think it shows. They are infinitely inferior to Gatsby.

Mortal, I tend to agree with you. Hemingway is the superior writer, but Fitzgerald's works surpassed Hemingways. This I attribute to Gatsby. The Sun Also Rises and A Farewell to Arms raise Hemingway to a level above Fitzgerald - Hemingway was a superior writer, but Gatsby is greater than Hemingway.

For this, I take JBI's side. Gatsby is terrific, and Fitzgerald's reputation stands atop it. Unlike Mortal, however, I enjoy both Hemingway and Joyce - not that I want to start a Ulysses debate..

Yes, some of them were no doubt inferior works composed solely for the sake of making money, but so were most of Faulkner's, to use a more contemporary example. The Diamond as Big as the Ritz is obvious junk, but what about Babylon Revisited? I rather liked that one. And then you have his stupendous series of essays in The Crack-Up.