Wuthering Heights and The Great Gatsby

[wessexgirl]

[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.

[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=wessexgirl;645901]

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