Wuthering Heights and The Great Gatsby

[Emil Miller]

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.

[kelby_lake]

No.
- heathcliff is found and taken in by the family. gatsby makes his own way.
- heathcliff is very primitive. gatsby isn't
- I don't think gatsby would go as far as corpse embracing.
- it's what daisy symbolises that gatsby wants

All-consuming desire is in many books. Lolita, The Great Gatsby, Othello (in the sense of jealous revenge and maybe repressed sexuality)...

[prendrelemick]

Man goes away, returns to find sweetheart married, is not an unusual plot

[chasestalling]

let's speculate. emily was a north englander and f scott's heritage irish. very conceivable there are family ties and as poets do beget poets...sure i'd buy it...

[Emil Miller]

No.
- heathcliff is found and taken in by the family. gatsby makes his own way.
- heathcliff is very primitive. gatsby isn't
- I don't think gatsby would go as far as corpse embracing.
- it's what daisy symbolises that gatsby wants

All-consuming desire is in many books. Lolita, The Great Gatsby, Othello (in the sense of jealous revenge and maybe repressed sexuality)...

Of course he wanted social status but only because that was what had prevented him from marrying Daisy. If that were not the case, how could the following passage have been written?

"They had never been closer during their month of love, nor communicated more profoundly with one another, than when she brushed silent lips against his coat shoulder or when he touched the end of her fingers, gently, as though she were asleep. "

[mercy_mankind]

I bought the Great Gatsby yesterday and i'm going to read it after two weeks, that's why I don't know whether it is like Wuthering Heights or not.

[wessexgirl]

I bought the Great Gatsby yesterday and i'm going to read it after two weeks, that's why I don't know whether it is like Wuthering Heights or not.

Wuthering Heights is far superior :thumbs_up :D

[JBI]

Who knows. Nick in Gatsby isn't as reliable a narrator as people make him think. Not only is he drunk part of the time, he also isn't as "unbiased" as he claims. There is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding the text. Also, there is a heavy emphasis put on Fitzgerald's Relationship with his wife Zelda as backdrop for the story, and therefore relevant in interpretation.

The real point though, is that can we really say Gatsby is in love with anyone but himself? Is his act of self-sacrifice in taking the blame for hitting Myrtle the end only brought about by a desire for him to seem like he is in love? Who knows.

[Joreads]

Wuthering Heights is far superior :thumbs_up :D

I have to agree with that ;)

[Snowqueen]

I have to agree with that ;)

It can’t reach to the heights of Wuthering Heights.:)

[kelby_lake]

n.
The real point though, is that can we really say Gatsby is in love with anyone but himself? Is his act of self-sacrifice in taking the blame for hitting Myrtle the end only brought about by a desire for him to seem like he is in love? Who knows.

Does anyone else think that Nick might be in love with Gatsby? He is very forgiving of Gatsby and practically worships him.

I like both Wuthering Heights and The Great Gatsby, although the first is a bit creepy.

[Emil Miller]

Wuthering Heights is far superior :thumbs_up :D

Wuthering Heights may be superior but, once again, that doesn't negate Gatsby:it's a matter of opinion.Obviously, apart from the similarities I have mentioned, Heights has a much more extensive storyline.It's all to easy for people who are used to reading legthy novels by the Brontes, Hardy, Lawrence etc. to find a book of only 144 pages inadequate without making sufficient allowance for the difference in style. I have only read Heights once and,yes, it is a great work of fiction. On the other hand I have read Gatsby six times because, although to the casual reader it might appear to be a slight romantic novel, there is a lot more to it than first impressions might imply.

[kelby_lake]

And the writing is beautiful...

[wessexgirl]

Wuthering Heights may be superior but, once again, that doesn't negate Gatsby:it's a matter of opinion.Obviously, apart from the similarities I have mentioned, Heights has a much more extensive storyline.It's all to easy for people who are used to reading legthy novels by the Brontes, Hardy, Lawrence etc. to find a book of only 144 pages inadequate without making sufficient allowance for the difference in style. I have only read Heights once and,yes, it is a great work of fiction. On the other hand I have read Gatsby six times because, although to the casual reader it might appear to be a slight romantic novel, there is a lot more to it than first impressions might imply.

My finding WH superior is nothing to do with the length. It's an iconic masterpiece. Gatsby is not. I don't say that because it's a short book, I say it because I think it is overrated. Graham Greene and Somerset Maugham wrote short books. They have a very different style to WH, which I also enjoy. They deserve their reputation. Gatsby does not.

[JBI]

That's opinion. Gatsby is actually far more interesting than some give credit. In terms of Prose, both are good examples of the modes of their authors, and it isn't really a truthful statement to say that "Wuthering Heights is better because of the prose style". For people used to reading in a Victorian mode, of course a Victorian mode would seem better, and seeing as how there are quite a few people who read mostly classics over contemporary books, it would seem likely there are many people who read mostly Victorian novels over modernist ones.

That being said, if you examine Fitzgerald's prose, you can notice that it is denser than one can imagine. The words themselves seem handpicked and excellent. He is generally regarded as having a quality approach to prose in Gatsby that is of an extremely perfectionist quality, coming from his extensive use of re-drafts throughout the book's composition.


In terms of content - there is more to Gatsby than meets the eyes. There are of course, many layers, as there are with Wuthering Heights. Generally I like to think the book is a short Novella with the weight of a 500 page book. It has far more in it than most books of that length.

That being said, as to which is better or worse, I think people schooled or more experienced in the British tradition will generally flock to Bronte, simply because she is part of that tradition, whereas people used to American literature, specifically Modernist literature, will probably bend towards Gatsby to some extent. Neither are really "better". I know as many readers who loathe Gatsby as do Wuthering Heights. Some find Heathcliff to be too Byronic in tone, to the point that they consider the book a flop, as they are unable to sympathize. It's all preference.

[wessexgirl]

That's opinion. Gatsby is actually far more interesting than some give credit. In terms of Prose, both are good examples of the modes of their authors,

and it isn't really a truthful statement to say that "Wuthering Heights is better because of the prose style".

I didn't say that.

For people used to reading in a Victorian mode, of course a Victorian mode would seem better, and seeing as how there are quite a few people who read mostly classics over contemporary books, it would seem likely there are many people who read mostly Victorian novels over modernist ones.

I don't only read Victorian novels, I have mentioned that I like Greene and Maugham, modern writers with a distinctly succint and different style to that of the Brontes.

That being said, if you examine Fitzgerald's prose, you can notice that it is denser than one can imagine. The words themselves seem handpicked and excellent. He is generally regarded as having a quality approach to prose in Gatsby that is of an extremely perfectionist quality, coming from his extensive use of re-drafts throughout the book's composition.
In terms of content - there is more to Gatsby than meets the eyes. There are of course, many layers, as there are with Wuthering Heights. Generally I like to think the book is a short Novella with the weight of a 500 page book. It has far more in it than most books of that length.

For a novel to be so highly acclaimed, it has to have more than form. Content is as, or more important, and to me Gatsby just doesn't have it.


That being said, as to which is better or worse, I think people schooled or more experienced in the British tradition will generally flock to Bronte, simply because she is part of that tradition, whereas people used to American literature, specifically Modernist literature, will probably bend towards Gatsby to some extent. Neither are really "better". I know as many readers who loathe Gatsby as do Wuthering Heights.

Some find Heathcliff to be too Byronic in tone, to the point that they consider the book a flop, as they are unable to sympathize. It's all preference.

I have never thought of Heathcliff as Byronic, he's a psychopath. We may be unable to sympathise with him, that's not the point. None of the characters in WH are likeable, as with Gatsby, but they are interesting a trait I do not find in any of the shallow characters in Gatsby. I never cared about any them, or was moved by them. Even though the characters in WH are not sympathetic, the feelings they portray are deep and heartfelt. But as you say, it's personal preference as to which you like, but I can't go along with Gatsby being acclaimed as the great 20th century novel.

[Emil Miller]

My finding WH superior is nothing to do with the length. It's an iconic masterpiece. Gatsby is not. I don't say that because it's a short book, I say it because I think it is overrated. Graham Greene and Somerset Maugham wrote short books. They have a very different style to WH, which I also enjoy. They deserve their reputation. Gatsby does not.

It's interesting that you should quote Greene and Maugham, two of my favourite authors, in support of your indifference to Gatsby;both of whom are English; as is Emily Bronte. It raises the question as to how many other American authors, with their distinctive idiom, you have read.

[mayneverhave]

But as you say, it's personal preference as to which you like, but I can't go along with Gatsby being acclaimed as the great 20th century novel.

Who said it was? I would think more along the lines of something by Joyce or Proust.

[wessexgirl]

It's interesting that you should quote Greene and Maugham, two of my favourite authors, in support of your indifference to Gatsby;both of whom are English; as is Emily Bronte. It raises the question as to how many other American authors, with their distinctive idiom, you have read.

I don't regard your last question as relevant. I have read American authors, as I have European. I have read Wharton, James, Hawthorne, Dreiser, that I can think of off the top of my head, although I admit, not everything by them. As I said in another thread, a good book is a good book, whatever continent its author stems from. The implication seems to be that I don't like Gatsby because it's American. That's not true. I just don't like Gatsby. It is allowed.

[wessexgirl]

Who said it was? I would think more along the lines of something by Joyce or Proust.

I believe someone earlier in either this thread or another one mentioned that its considered that highly. Without checking back, I can't be sure who.

[Joreads]

Quote:
Originally Posted by wessexgirl
But as you say, it's personal preference as to which you like, but I can't go along with Gatsby being acclaimed as the great 20th century novel.

I believe it was JBI that said it all comes down to preference and I have to agree with him. If you ask ten different people about the same book you will certainly get more than one and hopefully ten different takes on it. I didn't enjoy Gatsby either I read it because I felt that I should. That being said there is value to be found in anything that you read

[Emil Miller]

Who said it was? I would think more along the lines of something by Joyce or Proust.

I would agree that Gatsby is not the 20th century's greatest novel but it certainly must be a contender for the greatest American novel of the last century.

[kelby_lake]

[QUOTE=JBI;645881] None of the characters in WH are likeable, as with Gatsby, but they are interesting a trait I do not find in any of the shallow characters in Gatsby. I never cared about any them, or was moved by them. Even though the characters in WH are not sympathetic, the feelings they portray are deep and heartfelt. But as you say, it's personal preference as to which you like, but I can't go along with Gatsby being acclaimed as the great 20th century novel.

The characters aren't shallow in Gatsby- the people they represent are. You weren't upset for Gatsby when no one turned up to his funeral? People should by nature find that a tragedy.
Poor Gatsby- people dismiss the book as being uninteresting but they fail to see that it is the spirit and the atmosphere that the novel evokes- you will not get a better representation of 1920's America.

People are cruel and can be turned cold by society. WH, while a very good book and very passionate, doesn't have anything to say about a society, which is fine: instead we are shown two raging protagonists in a romantic whirlwind.

I don't want you to lie and say you liked it, but I would like you to at least appreciate it. It isn't the best 20th century novel, but it's the best 1920's one and that'll suit me.

[mayneverhave]

I would agree that Gatsby is not the 20th century's greatest novel but it certainly must be a contender for the greatest American novel of the last century.

Of course. In any discussion of the great American novel, "The Great Gatsby" invariably comes up. I'm for "The Sound and the Fury", but Gatsby is certainly fantastic.

I find myself taking the role of a Gatsby apologist often on this board, it seems. JBI's defence and praise of Fitzgerald's technical prose abilities is on point. 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.

But Gatsby is not an exercise in technical precision to the extent of Ulysses or Finnegans Wake. In Gatsby I find passages of exquisite beauty. Fitzgerald's control of mood is unbelievable. One passage in particular that I always return to is when Nick returns home to find Gatsby's mansion lit up from head to toe, and Gatsby wandering around seemingly distraught. It would be unwise to write off Gatsby as not having any content.

As for Wuthering Heights. It is certainly a good novel, but I tended to find the writing slightly stuffy.

[mayneverhave]

It isn't the best 20th century novel, but it's the best 1920's one and that'll suit me.

I'm not sure. Ulysses, The Sound and the Fury, the end of In Search of Lost Time, Mrs. Dalloway, To the Lighthouse, The Castle, The Trial, hell, even The Sun Also Rises, might deserve a place above Gatsby.

[Emil Miller]

Of course. In any discussion of the great American novel, "The Great Gatsby" invariably comes up. I'm for "The Sound and the Fury", but Gatsby is certainly fantastic.

I find myself taking the role of a Gatsby apologist often on this board, it seems. JBI's defence and praise of Fitzgerald's technical prose abilities is on point. 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.

But Gatsby is not an exercise in technical precision to the extent of Ulysses or Finnegans Wake. In Gatsby I find passages of exquisite beauty. Fitzgerald's control of mood is unbelievable. One passage in particular that I always return to is when Nick returns home to find Gatsby's mansion lit up from head to toe, and Gatsby wandering around seemingly distraught. It would be unwise to write off Gatsby as not having any content.

As for Wuthering Heights. It is certainly a good novel, but I tended to find the writing slightly stuffy.

I'm in complete agreement with your assessment of Gatsby but it is precisely those qualities you have mentioned that critics of the book are unabe to see.

[JBI]

Critics unable to see how mediocre a book is? Whereas you are... everyone is hoodwinked? There have been more essays written about color motifs in Gatsby than you can believe.

[mayneverhave]

Critics unable to see how mediocre a book is? Whereas you are... everyone is hoodwinked? There have been more essays written about color motifs in Gatsby than you can believe.

In defence of Brian, I believe he meant critics who attack the book are unable to see the good qualities that I pointed out in my post.

[JBI]

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.

[kelby_lake]

Critics unable to see how mediocre a book is? Whereas you are... everyone is hoodwinked? There have been more essays written about color motifs in Gatsby than you can believe.

There's a reason for that; because it is a good book, very metaphoric, simple but deep. The Metamorphosis is too.

Isn't it reverse snobbery to dislike something because a critic likes it? They are people too :)

[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.

[Jozanny]

Will we never cease with the Fitzgerald versus Hemingway boxing match? :rolleyes: If forced at knife point, I'd say the former had a more sophisticated take on the American pulse, but both men filled a niche in American Letters, and both men were influences on later authors. Dubus, whom I actually admire, was the modern Hemingway until his heart copped out on his amputated leg, mellowing Hemingway's melodrama, but still employing it with great effect on a contemporary reader. It has been so long since I've read WH and GG that I've stayed rather mum on the comparison, but Brian, I remember enough of Wuthering Heights morbidity that I think your premise is somewhat off. Ethan Frome seems more similar to the Gothic tale, though I think both Bronte sisters could have benefited in their outlook from American movement feminism, as they both slice their Gothic a tad thick.

[downing]

It seems that this discussion turned into something different from what it was intended to be. I'll go back to the first post of the thread and I confess that I was surprised in a good way when I saw that somebody had the same idea I had some months ago..the comparison between WH and The Great Gatsby. I intended to write a comparison between GG,WH,Gone with the Wind and Washington Square, having the question ''Is love eternal or not?'' as a main interest. Because of short deadlines, I had to write just about Gone with the Wind and The Great Gatsby, but I had made a brief plan which included WH as well.
In response to the question - was F.S Fitzgerald inspired by Emily Bronte, I would answer - definitely YES! I think that there is no author (at least respectable) who didn't read WH. I do not know whether he consciously wrote GG while thinking of Bronte's novel, but books always leave a trace in our brain. I don't think it is really relevant if Fitzgerald used WH as a source. All I know is that I had jotted down some ideas and this storyline was the main thing(poor boy,rich girl,departure,coming back rich,finding the girl married,having an affair - by the way, does Catherine have an affair with Heathcliff when he comes back?; it's been some time since I read it and I seem to have forgotten it). Anyways, you simply can't say that there are not some major similarities between the books.

[JBI]

I doubt Fitzgerald had read the Bronte's work. Their reputation existed, but wasn't like it is now, and classics weren't, we must remember, as readily available. Had he heard of the book? maybe, but had he read it? I highly doubt it.

[Emil Miller]

I doubt Fitzgerald had read the Bronte's work. Their reputation existed, but wasn't like it is now, and classics weren't, we must remember, as readily available. Had he heard of the book? maybe, but had he read it? I highly doubt it.

I am currently reading This Side of Paradise and it is clear from the number of English authors mentioned in the book that Fitzgerald had a great interest in English writing. On that basis, I would think it highly likely that he knew of the story of Wuthering Heights even if he hadn't read the novel.

[JBI]

Who is to say - you forget the date of composition - to what esteem were the Brontes in at that time? I have no idea, I am not a victorian specialist. To what esteem were Victorian novels held at that time is another question. I just doubt he read it, being that it seems unlikely. It didn't have the reputation abroad it has now then, that is for sure, and I am not even sure it had canonical status of any sort in America at that point. We must remember, it was initially highly criticized.

[Emil Miller]

Who is to say - you forget the date of composition - to what esteem were the Brontes in at that time? I have no idea, I am not a victorian specialist. To what esteem were Victorian novels held at that time is another question. I just doubt he read it, being that it seems unlikely. It didn't have the reputation abroad it has now then, that is for sure, and I am not even sure it had canonical status of any sort in America at that point. We must remember, it was initially highly criticized.

Wuthering Heights was published in 1847 whereas This Side of Paradise came out in 1920, so obviously, whatever the initial crticism of the Bronte novel, by the time that Fitzgerald was writing his book in 1919, Wuthering Heights had established itself as a widely-read masterpiece of English fiction. For someone like Fitzgerald, who mentions a whole host of 19th century English writers, it seem unthinkable that he wouldn't have heard of it.

[mayneverhave]

Speaking of the learning and reading habits of modernist writers:

How well read was Hemingway? I've written a couple papers (just this semester) on Hemingway in relation to the other 1920's writers (specifically Fitzgerald and Eliot).

Hemingway was good friends with Pound, but as I recall, not very fond of Pound's poetry. He remarked: "erudition shouldn't show". I wonder: could Hemingway have written eruditely even if he wanted to?

Hemingway also preferred Dubliners to Ulysses, though he helped smuggle the latter into the States. It's not clear whether he finished Ulysses or not (but who can blame him!)

Hemingway's relationship with Fitzgerald is pretty documented. Hemingway thought Gatsby fantastic, but the two seemed to go back and forth (apparently Zelda hated Hemingway).

As for Eliot. Hemingway called out Eliot on multiple occasions, disliked his poetry, but Eliot apparently never fired back - and actually praised Hemingway's writing. Perhaps Eliot was indifferent - his reputation was fine enough to withstand Hemingway's attacks.

Aside from the titles of his novels, and an allusion to Marvell in A Farewell to Arms, Hemingway avoided allusions.

[Virgil]

Wuthering Heights was published in 1847 whereas This Side of Paradise came out in 1920, so obviously, whatever the initial crticism of the Bronte novel, by the time that Fitzgerald was writing his book in 1919, Wuthering Heights had established itself as a widely-read masterpiece of English fiction. For someone like Fitzgerald, who mentions a whole host of 19th century English writers, it seem unthinkable that he wouldn't have heard of it.

I've been thinking on this. Fitzgerald was very well aware of the history of the novel. Wuthering Heights was made into a major film in 1939, so I have to believe it was well established as a classic by 1919, though I have no proof. I do not think it influenced Fitzgerald but i have to believe he read it.

The major infuences to Fitzgerald were John Keats, Henry James, and most importanttly Joseph Conrad. If you want to see parallels, compare The Great Gatsby with Conrad's Lord Jim.

[Virgil]

Speaking of the learning and reading habits of modernist writers:

How well read was Hemingway? I've written a couple papers (just this semester) on Hemingway in relation to the other 1920's writers (specifically Fitzgerald and Eliot).

Hemingway was good friends with Pound, but as I recall, not very fond of Pound's poetry. He remarked: "erudition shouldn't show". I wonder: could Hemingway have written eruditely even if he wanted to?

Hemingway also preferred Dubliners to Ulysses, though he helped smuggle the latter into the States. It's not clear whether he finished Ulysses or not (but who can blame him!)

Hemingway's relationship with Fitzgerald is pretty documented. Hemingway thought Gatsby fantastic, but the two seemed to go back and forth (apparently Zelda hated Hemingway).

As for Eliot. Hemingway called out Eliot on multiple occasions, disliked his poetry, but Eliot apparently never fired back - and actually praised Hemingway's writing. Perhaps Eliot was indifferent - his reputation was fine enough to withstand Hemingway's attacks.

Hemingway was very well read on the history of the novel, especially the American novel, but all novels. My impressions of Hemingway would agree with everything you state above, except perhaps your Eliot comment. I don't know what he thought of Eliot's poetry, but he certainly used Eliot's ideas in many places.


Aside from the titles of his novels, and an allusion to Marvell in A Farewell to Arms, Hemingway avoided allusions.
That I'm afraid I would disagree with. Hemingway used many allusions. The Sun Also Rises is an allusion to Ecclesiastes, but even more importantly the whole novel is one big allusion to Eliot's The Waste Land.

[Emil Miller]

I've been thinking on this. Fitzgerald was very well aware of the history of the novel. Wuthering Heights was made into a major film in 1939, so I have to believe it was well established as a classic by 1919, though I have no proof. I do not think it influenced Fitzgerald but i have to believe he read it.

The major infuences to Fitzgerald were John Keats, Henry James, and most importanttly Joseph Conrad. If you want to see parallels, compare The Great Gatsby with Conrad's Lord Jim.

There was a silent film version of 'Heights' made in 1920 so, yes, it had established itself as a classic by the time Fitzgerald was writing. I don't say for certain that it influenced Fitzgerald, my original thread asked whether it did.There is no way of establishing it one way or the other, but it has certainly given rise to some interesting posts.

[mayneverhave]

I don't know what he thought of Eliot's poetry, but he certainly used Eliot's ideas in many places.

That I'm afraid I would disagree with. Hemingway used many allusions. The Sun Also Rises is an allusion to Ecclesiastes, but even more importantly the whole novel is one big allusion to Eliot's The Waste Land.

Of course. The other thing I noticed is, as you pointed out, Hemingway's immense debt to The Waste Land.

Besides The Sun Also Rises being like a watered down Waste Land, A Farewell to Arms directly takes Eliot's use of the Marvell poem, To His Coy Mistress - in relation to car horns.

Hemingway, however, never acknowledge his debt to Eliot. Anxiety of influence maybe?

[kelby_lake]

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.

The Diamond as Big as the Ritz was great! I could do with that sort of money.
I also like Bernice Bobs Her Hair...and An Alcoholic Case. There are plenty of good ones.

I think The Last Tycoon could have been brilliant. It's gatsby-esque character-wise (Cecilia is like Nick, Stahr is like Gatsby), but it has a more exciting plot and it's about Hollywood :) What a waste the 1976 film of it was- why did they not use the ending written in the notes?

Anyway, most female novelists are ignored. Ask anyone to name you a classic female author and they'll say Austen, and the Brontes, but even then people get confused as to who wrote what. Us poor women do not get proper recognition!

[Emil Miller]

The Diamond as Big as the Ritz was great! I could do with that sort of money.
I also like Bernice Bobs Her Hair...and An Alcoholic Case. There are plenty of good ones.

I think The Last Tycoon could have been brilliant. It's gatsby-esque character-wise (Cecilia is like Nick, Stahr is like Gatsby), but it has a more exciting plot and it's about Hollywood :) What a waste the 1976 film of it was- why did they not use the ending written in the notes?

Anyway, most female novelists are ignored. Ask anyone to name you a classic female author and they'll say Austen, and the Brontes, but even then people get confused as to who wrote what. Us poor women do not get proper recognition!

The failure of the Gatsby film versions would indicate that Fitzgerald doesn't transfer very well to the screen. It is sometime since I read The Last Tycoon, but from my recollection of the book it seemed to me that Fitzgerald was struggling and the story appeared somewhat contrived; even though it is based on the life of Irving Thalberg the film producer.
I didn't watch the whole of the film version because it was a classic case of Hollywood extravagance signifying very little and seemed to mirror the emptiness of the plot. A case of art imitating art if you like.
It is ironic that Fitzgerald was writing from his own perspective as a scriptwriter for Hollywood but, because of his alcoholism, seemed unable to write what should have been the definitive authorial comment on tinsel town.

[JBI]

The Diamond as Big as the Ritz was great! I could do with that sort of money.
I also like Bernice Bobs Her Hair...and An Alcoholic Case. There are plenty of good ones.

I think The Last Tycoon could have been brilliant. It's gatsby-esque character-wise (Cecilia is like Nick, Stahr is like Gatsby), but it has a more exciting plot and it's about Hollywood :) What a waste the 1976 film of it was- why did they not use the ending written in the notes?

Anyway, most female novelists are ignored. Ask anyone to name you a classic female author and they'll say Austen, and the Brontes, but even then people get confused as to who wrote what. Us poor women do not get proper recognition!

Depends where - The Canadian prose tradition, for instance, is essentially built on the backs of female novelists, and female writers especially from minority groups.

The notion of a patriarchal literary canon doesn't really exist when talking about Canadian literature, as our first authors, Francis Brooke, Lucy Maud Montgomery, Susana Moodie, Katherine Parr Trail, and Vallancy Crawford were female, and essentially the founders of Canadian literature.


But in the context of England, to an extent you are right. From what I was taught, the Brontes themselves weren't even believed to be Girls on their initial publication, and the reviews tended to assume they were male, being the "seriousness" and "originality" of the books. I think, that given the gender of the author, it is quite possible that the book wasn't as central to the American well-read person's list than some of us here suggests. I stick by my original thoughts, and continue to doubt the familiarity Fitzgerald had with the text. I can't see any signs in Gatsby, or in his other works that I have read, of Bronte influence.

Either way though, I think the books are very different in terms of scope. In my opinion, I judge Wuthering Heights as a story transported out of the Byron vein, crossed with Gothic novel trends. The blend ends up being unique, as the awkward psychology of the Anti-hero meets the Gothic novel's romantic trends.

Gatsby on the other hand works more in an American setting. The plot, I would argue, is taken, in majority, from Fitzgerald's own biography, and the money is echoing Fitzgerald's obsession with the monetary status of people, also echoing his biography. Gatsby is, I would argue, an aspect of Fitzgerald himself. The success of Gatsby, and his lies, echoes Fitzgerald's own success, ironically achieved by telling lies for profit (the act of writing fiction).

We must also remember that Zelda Fitzgerald had just had an affair, right before the books writing? Is it too far to suggest that the affair made the book? In many senses, the book is biographical, except that it is fused with American mythologies as well, and the obsession with the American Dream, and of failure, two themes surrounding Fitzgerald and his contemporaries.

[kelby_lake]

The failure of the Gatsby film versions would indicate that Fitzgerald doesn't transfer very well to the screen. It is sometime since I read The Last Tycoon, but from my recollection of the book it seemed to me that Fitzgerald was struggling and the story appeared somewhat contrived; even though it is based on the life of Irving Thalberg the film producer.
I didn't watch the whole of the film version because it was a classic case of Hollywood extravagance signifying very little and seemed to mirror the emptiness of the plot. A case of art imitating art if you like.
It is ironic that Fitzgerald was writing from his own perspective as a scriptwriter for Hollywood but, because of his alcoholism, seemed unable to write what should have been the definitive authorial comment on tinsel town.

It's because his prose is so lyrical...I could do a good film version...it needs to be faster-paced.
I wasn't aware that Stahr was based on whoever Thalberg is, and I didn't see the contrivances, only the parallels it had with Gatsby.
Hollywood is empty showy nothingness as are a lot of Fitzgerald's characters, who are living in a dream world. Very few of his characters are practical and think in terms of realism- they live in deluded fairytales, which is why I think it appeals to people.

[wessexgirl]

It's because his prose is so lyrical...I could do a good film version...it needs to be faster-paced.
I wasn't aware that Stahr was based on whoever Thalberg is, and I didn't see the contrivances, only the parallels it had with Gatsby.
Hollywood is empty showy nothingness as are a lot of Fitzgerald's characters, who are living in a dream world. Very few of his characters are practical and think in terms of realism- they live in deluded fairytales, which is why I think it appeals to people.

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.

[Heathcliff]

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.

[dfloyd]

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.

[wessexgirl]

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....:nod::p. (I am a Brit :lol:).

[dfloyd]

I would have never guessed it.

[Heathcliff]

Yes it is....:nod::p. (I am a Brit :lol:).

I'm Australian. It still is. :lol:

[African_Love]

I liked Gatsby, I never read Wuthering Heights.

[prendrelemick]

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.


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.:thumbs_up

[Emil Miller]

Lots of people see similarities between Bronte’s `Wuthering Heights’ and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 'The Great Gatsby (http://www.shmoop.com/great-gatsby)'. Both, no doubt, have carved a niche for themselves in English Literature. The protagonists in both the novels are poor and are forced by circumstances to leave the great loves of their lives and return later as self-made men who have a position in society. But alas, their lady-loves have married someone else in their absence. The similarities end here. But we must also remember that while Heathcliffe is very primitive, Jay Gatsby is refined. We must also keep in mind that the time and the settings that the novels are set in, play a pivotal role in our understanding. Shmoop.com helped me a lot in getting a good perspective of this great American classic.

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.

[Katy North]

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!

[Emil Miller]

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.

[Katy North]

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 :).

[kelby_lake]

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.

[Emil Miller]

I'd say that Nick is quite genuine, though one wonders how obscured the narrative is by Nick.

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.

[Modest Proposal]

My finding WH superior is nothing to do with the length. It's an iconic masterpiece. Gatsby is not. I don't say that because it's a short book, I say it because I think it is overrated. Graham Greene and Somerset Maugham wrote short books. They have a very different style to WH, which I also enjoy. They deserve their reputation. Gatsby does not.

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.

[kelby_lake]

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.

Narratives are inevitably coloured by who is giving them.

[Emil Miller]

Narratives are inevitably coloured by who is giving them.

This is true but imputing any particular reason for such action is purely conjecture on the part of the reader.

[dfloyd]

books. But why compare books, especially Wuthering Heights and Gatsby when they are written so many years apart. I have read the Brontes and all of Scott Fitzgerald's works, both novels and short stories, and I am just glad I have read them and re-read them, not caring about similarities or which was best. A pretty good writer, Ernest Hemingway, thought a lot of Gatsby, although he didn't care much for Fitzgerald's gutteral, scatolological speech, especially when Fitzgerald was drunk.

Gatsby and Tender are hallmarks in American literature, but the more I read posts about these two novels, the more I am convinced that they should not be taught in high school. Not that they are beyond all in this age bracket, but that few, if any, high school teachers have the ability to teach them.

[Emil Miller]

books. But why compare books, especially Wuthering Heights and Gatsby when they are written so many years apart. I have read the Brontes and all of Scott Fitzgerald's works, both novels and short stories, and I am just glad I have read them and re-read them, not caring about similarities or which was best. A pretty good writer, Ernest Hemingway, thought a lot of Gatsby, although he didn't care much for Fitzgerald's gutteral, scatolological speech, especially when Fitzgerald was drunk.

Gatsby and Tender are hallmarks in American literature, but the more I read posts about these two novels, the more I am convinced that they should not be taught in high school. Not that they are beyond all in this age bracket, but that few, if any, high school teachers have the ability to teach them.

Well I am not comparing Gatsby with Heights but only suggesting the possibility that one may have been the progenitor of the other. I don't think a valid comparison could be made if only because, whilst the plot lines may be similar, they concern two entirely different societies.

[dfloyd]

were very declarative on the side of one novel or the other.