I’ve been sufficiently annoyed by an uploaded youtube video, so I’m going to write a response here because youtube comments isn’t the best means to get my thoughts across on the internet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VhYMdnAsyM
Characters
To begin on a positive note, I agree that likable characters are not necessary for quality literature. Well-developed, seemingly real and possibly interesting characters is more important to literature. And the story that surrounds them, of course.
John claims that Nick, Gatsby and arguably Daisy are likable characters. That’s fine, you’re allowed to like scum. Gatsby and Daisy are scum – Nick happens to be the least amount of scum (apparently his brother argues Gatsby is heroic, which is just insane). Gatsby is a selfish aristocrat, who whines a lot, and is stuck in immature infatuations. He’s self-centered, everything he does it to try and get the one thing he wants: Daisy. Beyond that, there’s not much to him. You’re free to like him, but he is a despicable aristocrat who will do whatever it takes to get what he wants. (remember when he fired all his servants?).
Daisy is an immature child who is unsure of what she wants, and wants more than she’s sure of. Like so many others, she exists to compliment a guy, which guy is that, well it really depends on the situation she’s in. Boring, rich and whiny, that’s it.
Nick is the best because he says the least and does the least. He’s a liar, though. At the end of the book he was content to lie about Gatsby, and felt that lying was obligated.
Language and literature
Naturally, the language in the book was ‘beautiful’. Quite descriptive, even to the point of superfluous. There’s no detraction from the quality of the language.
But there’s equally (and possibly more) pertinent judgments to be made over a piece of literature, and that’s the content (story, characters and interactions there-after) that the language paints. The Gatsby fails miserably when it comes to content, and that means the majority of what it’s about – not the obscure symbolism (which I’ll get to later). The story revolves around whiny, lavish and ultimately boring aristocrats. Nothing in the story is of importance, therefore nothing in the story deals with interesting things. The affairs and vices of rich fools – presented romantically – is of little interests.
For me, the mere descriptiveness of events does not trump the content.
Symbolism
I think this is my main problem with John’s analysis (and most peoples) of the book. He thinks the symbolism is what justifies the book.
I happen to not, and for good reason. The hundreds of pages of set-up (if you could call it that) are still there, and it’s dull and lame. If the symbolism is all you have for a defense, your defense is weak. If the whole book was to push those few vague and lofty messages, bad deal. Especially for the reader.
“To return to a better time.”
Anyone who really things that returning to life from the past is a positive and wonderful thing is either ignorant to history, or selectively ignorant to history. Romanticizing the past, through rose colored glasses. Life is significantly and indisputably better now. The wealth is significantly more spread around than hundreds, thousands, etc. of years ago (there’s no longer just a few families controlling all the wealth, in most Western countries). We live twice as long as we did a century ago. It’s pretentious and moronic to want to return to this “better” time.
**
Really, Great Gatsby is so popular because it’s so historically popular around the intellectual and literature scene. It’s just a Public Truth, that everyone automatically accepts because it’s popular and expected.
