Wuthering Heights and The Great Gatsby

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.

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)...

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

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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)...

---

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. "

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Wuthering Heights is far superior :thumbs_up :D

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

Wuthering Heights is far superior :thumbs_up :D

---

I have to agree with that ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joreads

I have to agree with that ;)

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

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.

And the writing is beautiful...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

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.

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.

[QUOTE=JBI;645881]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

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.

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

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.

[QUOTE=wessexgirl;645901]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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 :)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NEEMAN

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

You mean like The Sound and the Fury?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

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.