Oh! I HATED the first chapter! I thought to myself, "If the rest of the book is like this, why even read it?" But I loved the rest of it. So don't give up if you've only read the first chapter.
Oh! I HATED the first chapter! I thought to myself, "If the rest of the book is like this, why even read it?" But I loved the rest of it. So don't give up if you've only read the first chapter.
Just what real proof is there that Nick's a homosexual? ?_? I really don't see it if Fitzgerald had it (intentionally) in there...
[Trying to make light of the situation] Okay, that's a bit harsh Hiliary. ^_^ Well, he had a point with Gatsby's car being show-offish, that I can say. Maybe the other thoughts are a bit extreme but when people are analyzing something perhaps it goes a bit too far?
maybe if you knew how to read and write, you could understand this simple book
I am 27 years old and I'm going to have to disagree with the fact that some people actually think this book is good. I hated reading it. It was a very depressing, boring book. There is no excitement in it at all. I think the best part is when Tom slaps Myrtle. It made me laugh when i read that part, but besides that I was bored out of my mind the whole time. I would never read it again and the only reason I'm here typing this now is because im procrastinating doing my final for my literature class and I can't seem to say anything good about the book right now. I applaud whoever it was who said they like Anne McCaffery, she is a brilliant writer. Now there is someone who can write a story and keep the reader in terested. I know everything about Pern and nothing about The Great Gatsby. lol.
I don't really agree or disagree with anyone one person here. Sure, TGG was basically uninteresting, but Fitzgerald really has a way with symbolism. Unlike The Cat in the Hat or some other children's storybook, the true meaning lies deeper than the words. For example, Owl-eyes symbolizes Jesus Christ, and Dr. T.J. Eckleburg represents God. The movie can never portray those symbols the way the bok did. And to those of you who decided to skip the book and watch the movie instead, go back and read it. The book is always better than the movie. ^_^
I just had to write in response to all of the comments. Every human being is different. Not everyone will enjoy or need the lessons taught through every "literary Piece" written. <br><br>I have read the book twice: once when I was in high school for an assignment and now again to help my 17 yearold through some tough projects utilizing the book. <br><br>(My grammar may not be perfect but my message will be understandable.) <br><br>I did not enjoy reading it. I have a B.S. degree in education and am also at the mid way point to my masters. I am an intelligent woman in her late 30's. I have lived a hard but fruitful life. I have not learned anything from it other than I am not sure I can assist my son in using this book to make positive, society improving, life improving decisions. This will not help him create positive relationships. This will not help him keep a budget or get to work on time. This will not motivate him to serve his country or complete his work week. <br><br>I understand that this may be construed and how people in this country used to live. I do not know or have known of anyone from that generation that lived that lifestyle. I personally do not want my son to learn anything from this other than not to choose to live and strive after such pitiful aims and goals.
Hmm... I think Gatsby was corrupt. If he wasn't corrupt he wouldn't feel the need to become a rich man using thieft and lies. Also he is just as materialistic as Daisy and Tom. And about Daisy and Gatsby's love being pure... um, no. If it was so "pure" why didn't Dasiy wait for him? <br>I admit that at the beginning of the story I thought Gatsby was the exception to the rule of rich people being horrible in this story, but in the end he was just like them. Yeah, he wasn't AS bad as everyone esle, but that doesn't mean he wasn't corrupt
Hey, just because someone doesn't like the Great Gatsby doesn't mean they're stupid. I didn't really like it either, and I'm not saying I'm an expert on the book, but my class totally picked it apart to find all the symbolism, which I usually enjoy. But it was just one of those books that didn't really click with me. If you guys are looking for a really good book "What the Scarecrow Said" by Stewart David Ikeda is REALLY good. We're reading it in English and I seriously can't put it down.
I know that you wrote your comment a long time ago...but...<br>I don't think that Daisy really honestly knew what she wanted. Gatsby went away to join the armed forces and Tom came along and she married Tom...she says that she loved Tom at one point and Gatsby was speaking on her behalf in the hotel, Gatsby indeed did know her first but Daisy didn't really deserve Gatsby, Gatsby was a good man and Daisy was a greedy woman just looking for someone with money to take care of her because it was the easiest way out of things in life without having to work for anything. Yes, Tom was a prick as you state, but he and Daisy belong to each other becuase they both are willing to use each other for the image that they want to portray to others that they may meet in their lives.
It's funny how you would rate a book on your own understanding of the English language. That shows a maturity that I have never seen before. You should be very proud of your pathetic attempt at reading.
No offence, but all of the stuff that you think is "irrelevant" and should have been ommitted is really deep and symbolic and everything has a reason (ie: the accident with owl eyes may seem irrelevant to you, but the car crashing represents bad morals and can be used in substitution with accident through that whole dialouge to infer some important stuff). Every singly sentence of this book has some deep connection to another part of the book or symbalizes sometihgn. IF your teacher didn't get that in depth with u, yes it could seem like a lot of irrelevent unneeded stuff is there, but trust me, it all has significance! this is not a book to read for plot!!!! its advanced
The original comment is all shameful, but the last line ("Gastby is a good man, making his way without causing others trouble") might be evidence that this reader either 1) Didn't read the book, 2) Perhaps read it but missed the most basic ideas, 3) Saw the movie years ago and is confusing it with The Grapes of Wrath, or 4) Heard about the movie from his/her sister who just likes Robert Redford, or whoever played Gatsby.<br><br>"Gatsby is a good man, making his way without causing others trouble...." <br><br>No. Gatsby, in the 1920s, when the novel is set, is the equivalent of a modern-day drug lord. He has murdered people, probably. In his most devious, fraudulent way, he is trying to take another man's wife. This pursuit of Daisy speaks of Gatsby's belief in "ideals," his "blind optimism" (disguised as good ol' American determination), and the means by which he's chosen to "get" Daisy -- larceny, lying, pandering, scheming, bribery, fraud, living a fantasy, basically -- the flagrancy with which Gatsby goes about these things ensures that he's going to butt heads with "the real world," which is what Myrtle's husband represents, and is Gatsby's wake-up call. <br><br>Gatsby might be "Great" ...but the question we should ask ourselves as we read, and after we've read, is, "He is great at what?" He's a great slime ball. He's materialism, capitalism, ego-mania, all run amuck. His *name* isn't even real.... So, if this is a "...good man, just making his way without causing others trouble," then heaven must be populated mostly by mafia bosses, it seems.<br><br>Maybe read it again?
can you put in more quotes from daisy and gatsby that shows how they are shallow? I have to do this book for school to and it is driving me crazy
I think the reason most high school students, myself included, fail to enjoy this "classic" is due to Fitzgerald's almost conceited writing style. This is evident at the very beginning of the book where Fitzgerald tends to take a "look at me, I'm an authour; look how good I can write" type of approach that doesn't address the central themes of the story. Yes, some of these overbearing sections of the text are vital in some way to the developement of the novel and, yes, I may simply not enjoy this style due to my polarised social constructs with Mr Fitzgerald. However, it is clear that at times during the novel, irrelevant words, phrases and even whole pages are added in an attempt for the author to demonstrate his literary prowess. Consequently, I found that this hindered the effectiveness and development of the story's internal message and, if anything, found 'The Great Gatsby' an excellent cure for insomnia as I resonated in and out of conciousness constantly throughout reading Fitzgerald's self-dubbed 'masterpiece.' Maybe I have overlooked an influential factor that has earned this book the category of a 'classic' or maybe readers are in awe of Fitzgerald's attempts to prove his status at an author that they fail to appreciate (or depreciate) the book for the failed message it has attempted to translate to its audience.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote