Should have read classics discussion

This is the group read book for February. I read this book 3 times in high school. For some reason it needed to be drilled into my brain. For that reason, I have no fond memories of this one so I'm interested in reading it now that a few years have passed. The only movie version that I have seen, is the one with Robert Redford. Did most of you have to read this in school? What was your perception of it then? Did you reread it and have that perception change?

I hated this book when I read it in school. I thought it was stupid. I re-read it just this month and gained much more appreciation for it. Fitzgerald's writing is lovely in parts and I had much more understanding for the intricate relationships of Gatsby and Daisy and the narrator, Nick. So while I enjoyed it much more the second time around, the characters still seemed shallow and I didn't feel connected to any of them, which perhaps was Fitzgerald's intention.

I don't know why they get high schoolers to read it though. They could have very little connection with the roaring 20s and don't have the life experience to appreciate the subtle emotional motivations in the book.

I was glad that I read it again though.

I never read it in high school. I read it for the first time several years ago. I loved it. The characters are shallow and selfish, which represents many of the wealthy of that day as well as ours. (I read this right after the Madoff scandal.)

I've read it several times over the last forty years. I love it and think it is a great book. I thought the recent movie version was better than the Robert Redford version.

I have never read this book, not even it's description. I've only read/heard people praise it, a lot. I'm looking forward to this book, it feels like it's gonna be a great read!

I have never read this book before, but, having just finished the first chapter, I'm a bit puzzled that it is so commonly assigned to high school students. So far, there doesn't seem to be much going on that a typical teenager could relate to. Perhaps that will change as the book progresses?

Nina wrote: "I have never read this book before, but, having just finished the first chapter, I'm a bit puzzled that it is so commonly assigned to high school students. So far, there doesn't seem to be much goi..."

This is why teenager's hate the book. They have to read it before they have enough life experiences to appreciate it.

I've just finished the book and continue to be puzzled as to why it is routinely assigned to high school students. The setting, the characters, and the plot don't offer much for a typical teen to sink his/her teeth into. I'm sure my teenage self would have detested it. Even as an adult, I didn't find any of the characters particularly compelling. On the contrary, I was repelled by all of them, which kind of took away from any emotional impact the final outcome of the story otherwise might have had on me. Still, Fitzgerald does have a way with words, which made it all quite readable despite that. Can anyone recommend some other books of his that feature more sympathetic characters?

I have always found the title of this book ironic. What do you think makes Gatsby great?

How is everyone doing with this one? I'm still plugging along and it is a slog.

Lisa, I think the title is very much meant to be ironic. Gatsby isn't "great," but he turns himself into a larger than life figure to try to win and be worthy of Daisy. Look at the party where Nick first meets him. People are telling all sorts of wild stories about Gatsby, like he is some kind of legend. Nick meets him by accident, when he casually remarks to the person he is talking with something like: You know, this is a very odd party. I still haven't met my host. The man to whom he is speaking is, of course, Gatsby, who says: "I'm Gatsby." This follows:

“I thought you knew, old sport. I’m afraid I’m not a very good host.”

He smiled understandingly—much more than understandingly. It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life. It faced—or seemed to face—the whole external world for an instant, and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favor. It understood you just so far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you as you would like to believe in yourself, and assured you that it had precisely the impression of you that, at your best, you hoped to convey. Precisely at that point it vanished—and I was looking at an elegant young rough-neck, a year or two over thirty, whose elaborate formality of speech just missed being absurd. Some time before he introduced himself I’d got a strong impression that he was picking his words with care."

I've always loved that description of Gatsby's smile, and it seems to me to be almost the definition of charm. But then, I seem to be in the rare minority of people who read and liked this book in high school. Of course, it wasn't assigned reading, and that may have made a difference.

I never read this in high school and glad that it wasn't required. I wouldn't have had the appreciation for it then that I do now. the first time I read it was my early 20's and I just fell in love it it. I've always been fascinated with that time period and the snobbery of the rich lol.

I agree with Casceil, Gatsby isn't great, it's was he is perceived to be by others. Who wouldn't make them self seem larger than life for the woman they love?

I finished it for my physical life book club last year and I really enjoyed it. I'm guessing it gets assigned to teenagers because of its lenghth though.

Anyway, I really liked it, but mostly because it does such an awesome job at depicting how outward glitter does not equate happiness -something people at every age need reminding of.

I joined the group today. Lucky Gatsby is a short book so I can finish the book I'm reading and then hopefully read Gatsby in time to join in. I read it when I was about 19 and I remember liking it but also feeling that there were some parts I didn't understand so what's being said about the subtleties of the book make sense. I was a fairly naive 19 year old. The only problem is whether I'll read it now and discover that I'm a naive 30 year old.

Isobel wrote: "I joined the group today. Lucky Gatsby is a short book so I can finish the book I'm reading and then hopefully read Gatsby in time to join in. I read it when I was about 19 and I remember liking it..."

LOL Isobel!
A-denie, I have wondered if many school reads are picked for their length also. Welcome to the group everyone!

I don't know how schools pick books, though based on what my kids have had assigned to them, "depressing" is a key component. I know there are computer programs that decide what "reading level" a book is based on factors like average number of syllable in a line, and sentence length. The Great Gatsby is written in prose that is easy to read (unlike, say, Faulkner), so that may be a factor in its selection .

I'm only 10 pages in and I'm already enjoying it. Funny how time changes perception. I enjoy the description of Tom Buchanans. I can visualize him in my mind and can understand the exact personality.

I never read this book in high school, so I decided to read it over a year ago. I did enjoy reading it, but I felt like I had a better understanding of it after watching the movie (1974 version)!

I'm about half way through now. Really enjoying it. My favourite part is the the guy in the library who has been drunk for a week. It seems that he is a significant character but I'm not sure of what that significance is. Any ideas?

I'm about half way through now. Really enjoying it. My favourite part is the the guy in the library who has been drunk for a week. It seems that he is a significant character but I'm not sure of what that significance is. Any ideas?

I read it in high school and I've seen both movies. I enjoyed it in high school but I enjoyed it much more this time. I think I was able to take away more from the book.

Isobel wrote: "I'm about half way through now. Really enjoying it. My favourite part is the the guy in the library who has been drunk for a week. It seems that he is a significant character but I'm not sure of wh..."

I thought this character was interesting, too. I've never been able to attach any particular meaning to him, other than as an illustration of how little anyone can know about Gatsby. He's been living in his house for months, but they obviously don't even know each other. However, you'll see my point when you get to the end. Don't want to spoil it. :)

Isobel wrote: "I'm about half way through now. Really enjoying it. My favourite part is the the guy in the library who has been drunk for a week. It seems that he is a significant character but I'm not sure of wh..."

I found the idea that he was surprised that the books on the shelf were real, funny and rather sad. It seems a sad commentary that one would try to fool the world with fake, cardboard books instead of real ones. Maybe, that was another idea for the scene?

I forgot that this book had unrequited love in it. Totally forgot about Gatsby and Daisy's past history. I really need to rethink every book review that I posted on books I read before my 20's.

Cleo wrote: "I hated this book when I read it in school. I thought it was stupid. I re-read it just this month and gained much more appreciation for it. Fitzgerald's writing is lovely in parts and I had much..."


Upon reflection, do you feel some pity for these characters who are what they are because of choices they have made? I have noticed that sometimes people construct traps for themselves. Kind of sad, really, or so it seems, anyway.

Casceil wrote: "I don't know how schools pick books, though based on what my kids have had assigned to them, "depressing" is a key component. I know there are computer programs that decide what "reading level" a ..."


I agree. I remember absolutely hating Hawthorne's SCARLET LETTER. I certainly did not have the depth of understanding that it takes to appreciate this work. I did love the excerpt we read from Wouk's CAINE MUTINY. Do you recall any of your favorites?

I'm like Nick, the only character I feel sorry for his Gatsby, he's worth the whole damn lot of them. Everything Gatsby does he does for Daisy and in the end she turns her back on him. Though Gatsby does bring it upon himself by asking too much from Daisy. The Buchanans remind me of the Kennedy's the way they buy themselves out of crime and scandal. It's funny that Fitzgerald captured the attitudes of the uber wealthy so well that life ends up imitating art, don't you think?

Lisa wrote: "This is the group read book for February. I read this book 3 times in high school. For some reason it needed to be drilled into my brain. For that reason, I have no fond memories of this one so ..."


I remember being enamored of Jackson Scholz' sports novels when I was in high school. Mark Twain was about the only thing I enjoyed out of all the material we were assigned to read.

☯Emily has reviews on Booklikes wrote: "Nina wrote: "I have never read this book before, but, having just finished the first chapter, I'm a bit puzzled that it is so commonly assigned to high school students. So far, there doesn't seem t..."


I suppose that our horizons were supposed to have been broadened in these classes. I certainly could have benefited from reflecting on people and occurrences outside my own narrow range of experience. I seem to remember the teacher striving for that effect, at any rate. Of course I hated it!

I was assigned it in high school as well but in combination with an in-class presentation of the Redford/Dern/Waterston/Coppola movie. That made it awesome.

Same treatment given to: 'Billy Budd' and 'Of Mice and Men'. Every book combined with the movie version.

Rb, "Billy Budd" was the book I absolutely hated in high school. I don't know if a movie would have made it better. Maybe. I liked the Shakespeare plays we read, and the romantic poets, and Walden, but I don't think we read much in the way of novels, except for Billy Budd and Lord of the Flies (another book I hated).

Sorry to hear. Its a well-respected classic movie, taken from a hit play. Directed by (and co-starring) Peter Ustinov. Cast: Terence Stamp, Robert Ryan, Melvyn Douglas--that is top talent.

Sure, maybe more of a guy's film. Final scene definitely has power to put one's heart in one's throat.

I first read this book in high school and I loved it! I re-read it again when the movie came out recently and enjoyed it even more the second time. Its such a captivating story of love, betrayal, and longing. I love Gatsby, but also feel so sad for him. He is so lost, and has no idea how to come back. I also enjoyed Nick's character. He is always there for everyone and I really enjoyed his presence through it all and his perspective on the events! Amazing, amazing read!

I loved the way Nick described himself in the beginning as "that most limited of all specialists, the well-rounded man."

Casceil wrote: "I loved the way Nick described himself in the beginning as "that most limited of all specialists, the well-rounded man.""

Love it!

I read this in high school. I read it again in anticipation of the new film, which I didn't see anyway. I actually had no memory of this book when I read it the second time.

I will say that I found it just ok. I realize it is capturing a time period and a specific class of people, but I felt the love between gatsby and daisy to be strained and unrealistic. A friend of mine that loves this book explained how gatsby epitomizes the American dream rags to riches story and his tragedy is his love for daisy. Indeed.

I have only read this book by Fitzgerald. I am not sure I would enjoy the others. I feel like he and his contemporaries write in a style more concerned with setting and time rather than plot.

It could also be said that more modern books over-rely on plot. Plot dominates middle-grade fiction; plot has never been as interesting as human psychology..this tenet goes back to Aristotle. Think about it: after a certain amount of study, you can discover that all plots are essentially trivial and limited. But human psychology is never exhausted.

Fitzgerald and his peers weren't that concerned with plot, you're correct. If you examine the outlines for his tales (as he was planning them) plot is almost always subjugated to the task of 'exposing truths about his characters'. In his first novel ('This Side of Paradise') its hard to even discern a plot. Its a moody, introspective prose-poem. Meanwhile, one of his later books, 'The Beautiful and Damned' is surely more plot-centric, but it winds up being one of his weakest efforts. He swung too far in the other direction and gave us a melodramatic pot-boiler.

He truly struck the correct balance with 'Gatsby' and later, even bettered himself with 'Tender is the Night'. That book reads like the best fiction of today--it could contend easily with any writing of today--demonstrating that in either era, it is actually character which matters most.

I haven't tried tender is the night, but it sounds more like a book I would enjoy.

I appreciate the feedback Feliks. You are correct that human psychology is a more interesting subject matter. I think I haven't found the right book from this time period.

Elizabeth wrote: "I felt the love between gatsby and daisy to be strained and unrealistic."

I agree. But I think it was meant to be so, because it wasn't real love. Gatsby loved the idea of Daisy, and Daisy loved being idolized by Gatsby.

Sheri C wrote: I agree. But I think it was meant to be so, because it wasn't real love. Gatsby loved the idea of Daisy..."

I agree with that too. They fell in love and then spent so many years fantasizing about what it would be like to be together that there was no way it could have been realistic or worked out in any way.

I'm late to the party. I've just finished chapter one but will catch up as quickly as I can.

RE: the earlier discussion of why Nick is hanging out with the Buchanans, Fitzgerald sets it up by having Nick describe himself as the kind of guy that "abnormal minds" glom onto and inflict their confidences.

He comes of very respectable and well-do-do midwestern family and has come East to find an occupation. He is restless as a veteran of WWI (an understated reference to PTSD) and craves a more active scene.

Nick doesn't say who phones whom, but it would have been natural for Daisy and Nick's extended family to alert them to each other's proximity. Family is family, and Daisy would be expected to help Nick socially as Nick would be expected to, well, let's not say spy, but at least to represent the family.

Daisy might have avoided Nick if she'd wanted to, but don't she and Tom seem rather at sea in their big mansion? She seems pleased (too pleased) to see Nick. Perhaps she's a bit homesick. Perhaps she's lonely. Maybe she's a little afraid of Tom and is glad to have a male cousin around. Another possibility--Tom hints that he believes Daisy may not be purely "Nordic." Perhaps she expects Nick to vouch for her?

Tom seems glad to have an old Yale man to chum with. Nick notes that at college he had had the impression that Tom (otherwise a brute) wanted Nick to like him. With all the tension brewing between Tom and Daisy, Nick is a piece of social hardware both are using as a human shield.

Daisy's "confidential chat" with Nick on the veranda probably contains some truth--maybe it's all true--but Nick detects Daisy's "insincerity" and files it as a trick. He is already aware that Daisy's intention is to manipulate his sympathies, but as he declares at the opening of the book, he is willing to be tolerant of those who have not his advantages. What advantage does Nick have over the Buchanans? For one thing, he isn't locked in a loveless marriage. (He has dodged that.) More important, he has a sound and superior mind (as opposed to the abnormal ones occupying the noggins of the Buchanans).

Why do Tom and Daisy stop him from leaving and ask about his engagement? Are they seriously trying to set him up with Jordan? Are they reluctant to let him go, knowing they will be alone together after he's gone? Are they indulging in a midwestern pastime of "grill the boy about the rumors"?--Daisy does for a moment sound more Louisville than Long Island.

I read Gatsby a few years ago and wasn't really wowed. I hardly remember it. I'm enjoying it more now, and I'm sure it's because I'm reading it more closely. Books reveal more of themselves with a second reading. With really good books, it's what is bubbling away underneath that makes it a keeper.

Casceil wrote: "Lisa, I think the title is very much meant to be ironic. Gatsby isn't "great," but he turns himself into a larger than life figure to try to win and be worthy of Daisy. Look at the party where Ni..."

I really loved when Nick turns to someone to comment that he hasn't met his host, and the stranger turns out to be Gatsby.

I'm new to goodreads and this group, but have read The Great Gatsby along with my older kids while they were in high school. Fitzgerald certainly does capture the Jazz Age, for upper society anyway, and its free-for-all and care-free attitude during a period of affluence...easy come...easy go, I suppose. In college, my daughter recently needed to read Bernice Bobs Her Hair, a short story by Fitzgerald showing how the Jazz Age affected even the younger generation.

If Fitzgerald's characters are true to life at all, which I believe they can be, having much does not necessarily eliminate worry. We just worry about other things. Reading Fitzgerald makes me appreciate my very simple, yet very full and content life of faith and family.

I believe Fitzgerald did indeed capture a moment in time with his depiction of characters. I do enjoy reading his work.

Longhare wrote: "With all the tension brewing between Tom and Daisy, Nick is a piece of social hardware both are using as a human shield."

Beautifully put. They are, as Nick said, selfish and careless people. They use others and throw them away when they're no longer of use.

I just loved this book....I have watched the movie but the story loses some of its magic in the translation to the screen...

The Redford version is quite good.

In the (gag) '3-d' remake they are using a soundtrack containing pop and heavy-metal music, plus the pig-snouted, pudgy, Leonardo Duh-Caprio as the lead 'actor'.. that says it all about how seriously it needs to be taken.

The music on the previews was a complete turnoff for me. Such a missed opportunity for a glorious jazz age soundtrack. I couldn't bring myself to spend money on seeing it at the theaters.

I finally finished and I enjoyed this book more this time than the previous ones. I liked how Fitzgerald used the seasons and weather to set up the book.

I loved the book and I felt like it reminded me of the writing of Graham Greene. Just mentioning it in case anyone was interested in similar authors.

I tend it become fixated on tangents when I'm reading, did it all the time in school. So I'm still thinking about the man with the owl-eyed spectacles. On the one hand I think Sheri is right about the character demonstrating how isolated and difficult to know Gatsby is but Lisa's comments "I found the idea that he was surprised that the books on the shelf were real, funny and rather sad. It seems a sad commentary that one would try to fool the world with fake, cardboard books instead of real ones. Maybe, that was another idea for the scene?" made me think that this character knew more than anyone else about Gatsby. In a way the author is talking to us directly, telling us that everything about Gatsby is fake, it's just one big show which he has meticulously prepared. Or on the other hand he might be telling us that he's not such a fake after all seeing as the books are actually real. Not sure actually. Probably how fake or real Gatsby is is supposed to be an unanswered question, similar to how Nick keeps on changing his mind about how fake Gatsby is.

Sheri C wrote: "The music on the previews was a complete turnoff for me. Such a missed opportunity for a glorious jazz age soundtrack. I couldn't bring myself to spend money on seeing it at the theaters."

I know, can you friggin' believe it? Taste this poor, and judgment this askew is utterly mind-blowing. If someone had told me this anecdote, and it was uncorroborated by evidence, I wouldn't have believed my ears. It sounds like something from SNL.

Let's see..making a serious, studious attempt to re-do a classic period-piece and the first aesthetic choice is to add in modern pop music. Utter jackassery.

I also couldn't fathom why there was a 3-d version. What possible utility is 3-D in a movie about wealthy plutocrats? Do we get to see decanters of brandy hovering in the air before our eyes?