Or not, as the case may be. Their shallowness and emptiness is what I think puts me off them. I don't see any depth to them, and I don't really care about them.Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Or not, as the case may be. Their shallowness and emptiness is what I think puts me off them. I don't see any depth to them, and I don't really care about them.
This is all so complicated.
Heathcliff is, as far as I'm concerned, absolutely adorable. Yes, yes. I know he may be a little sadistic with Catherine's dead body and rather delusional in trying to keep Cathy hostage, however he really just needs a big cuddle.
I suppose Gatsby does as well.
I don't think The Great Gatsby was derived from Wuthering Heights, however there are small similarities here and there. As another piece of literature, it may have been an influence, although it is still it's own story.
It makes more sense to visualise both scenes in your head, I think. They can't be that close.
For I have known them all already, known them all:
Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,
I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;
I know the voices dying with a dying fall
Beneath the music from a farther room.
So how should I presume?Eliot
I see little in common with Gatsby and Wuthering Heights ....
Fitzgerald probably used his relatonship with his wife, Zelda, in writing Gatsby. They are both good books, and I have read both. But only a Brit would think Wuthering Heights was far superior to Gatsby, which it isn't.
Yes it is..... (I am a Brit
).
I would have never guessed it.
I'm Australian. It still is.Yes it is....
For I have known them all already, known them all:
Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,
I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;
I know the voices dying with a dying fall
Beneath the music from a farther room.
So how should I presume?Eliot
I liked Gatsby, I never read Wuthering Heights.
The "In need of a cuddle" conclusion is probably the best and most concise summing up of a literary character I've ever come across.
Thanks for your link to The Great Gatsby which articulates much better than I could the many facets that underlie the basic storyline of this truly great American novel. It is only by understanding these hidden depths in Scott Fitzgerald's story that the book can be appreciated as the masterwork that it is. I never tire of reading it.
When my sister (who is nearly as obsessed with reading as me) read the Great Gatsby in High School, she hated it, because she hated the characters. I was appalled, and tried to convince her that you don't need to like the characters to love the book! Gatsby is an excellent novel about the social condition of the 1920s, and has superior, tight, visual prose. She didn't changer he mind about the book, but it did inspire me to reread Gatsby and fall in love with the book all over again (and thank my lucky stars that I didn't know any Daisys).
I find it hard to believe that Gatsby and Wuthering Heights are linked in more than general theme, mainly because I believe that Gatsby WAS, at least in part, a work of social criticism, and because (if I remember correctly, it's been many years since I read WH), I believe Wuthering Heights was more of a Romantic Drama, focusing on the lives of the characters more than the world they live in. The general plot line may be similar, but I doubt WH inspired Gatsby concretely... I always felt like Fitzgerald had a very solid, unique vision while writing Gatsby... that he was writing about the emptiness of the lives of his characters, and pointing out that even romances between these characters are devoid of much other than wealth and materialism.
I could go on, but I have to go!
When I started this thread, it now seems a long time ago, I think I was reacting to the initial similarity between the plotlines of the stories. However, I see from your post that the social circumstances of the USA during the early 1920's were more likely to have engendered the novel and I agree that it may be so. I do not, however, subscribe to the theory that Gatsby saw only wealth and position in Daisy Buchanan even if she represents it in the book. If Gatsby didn't love her except for her social status,the whole story is just an exercise in cynicism.
I do agree, I was going to say before I had to leave, that Gatsby is probably the only genuine person in the book, though being a recent up and comer he is also incredibly naive.
I do think he might have mixed his desire for Daisy for desire for "the high life"... I think that that might partially be what the symbolism of her dock light represents to him...
As you can probably tell, I really loved the analysis of this book and I wish I had it close to hand so I could refresh my memory.
I'd say that Nick is quite genuine, though one wonders how obscured the narrative is by Nick.I do agree, I was going to say before I had to leave, that Gatsby is probably the only genuine person in the book, though being a recent up and comer he is also incredibly naive.
I do think he might have mixed his desire for Daisy for desire for "the high life"... I think that that might partially be what the symbolism of her dock light represents to him...
As you can probably tell, I really loved the analysis of this book and I wish I had it close to hand so I could refresh my memory
This point has been raised before but why should there be any reason for him not to be true to his role as narrator? I saw nothing dubious in his telling of the story.
Well, as JBI and I have debated often enough, arguing something's influence or iconic status can be a bit tricky, but to say that The Great Gatsby is not iconic is just plain wrong. I tend to like 19th century works more than their followers, but The Great Gatsby is HUGELY iconic and often considered one of the most important Western 20th century works. Ironically, it's status is usually attributed to it's ICONIC representation of the roaring 20s in America.
Saying Gatsby doesn't deserve a reputation is silly. If anything a reputation is exactly what we can calculate people as having EARNED. If one critic said he was great, than you could speculate that he doesn't deserve his reputation. But Fitzgerald's reputation is based on the fact that most critics and writers endowed him with praise. Whether or not the book it too your liking, if most everyone else likes it, than it earned it's reputation. It'd be like someone saying Twilight didn't earn it's reputation as popular because it isn't well written. Wrong. By being popular it earned it's reputation as popular--regardless of it's quality. By influencing and being made iconic of a time period, Gatsby EARNED it's reputation as iconic and important. Just like the masses are what determines a books popularity--something more mathematical than debatable--in America at least a works importance in the literary cannon is determined by the writers and critics in the field. If they like it and read it and teach it and use it as influence for their own books... it's important, even iconic.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
