Let's not forget that Nick states "I’m inclined to reserve all judgments" and goes on to judge everyone else in the entire novel for possessing the same flaws which he shares, and which the reader also shares. We like to think of ourselves as above the action of the story, but in reality we should be able to see some shared characteristics between ourselves and at least one character.
I remember reading that line in chapter 1 and thinking, "I don't trust you." Is a narrator who insists he is reliable truly so? Is he a lens that mirrors our own as we read?
@Chris Taylor / This is exactly what John said in Part 1: “That’s the pleasure and challenge of reading great novels: you get to see yourself as others see you & you get to see others as they see themselves”.
Nick in general is meant to contradict his own beliefs he claims to be the only honest man he knows yet continues to lead a dishonest lifestyle while demonstrating the moral ambiguity of New York in the 1920s
Daisy, in a way, just became an imaginary character to Gatsby. He took the best moments that he had with her and for five years created a portrait of Daisy that made her out to be the most incredible person on earth. In reality she was just a snobby careless upperclass woman who really wasn't worth pining after
None of the characters are inherently good, even Gatsby only "turned out ok in the end." From Nick Carraway's perspective, everyone sucks. You could say that the distastefulness of everyone in the Great Gatsby is a rebuke of contemporary malaise in society. And for Fitzgerald, maybe Nick's the ideal vessel to explore that kind of decay. He's a proto-Holden Caulfield, in that way. The American Dream is/was dead. Only in Gatsby did it carry on. And one fine morning....
I think Gatsby fell in love with the idea of daisy rather than daisy herself, and so when his idea of daisy didn't match who daisy actually was, his reality came crumbling down upon him. And so it was rather his failure to accept the reality that daisy was not he thought she was than anything else that ultimately lead to his demise. - Yet I can't help but admire Gatsby's courage and sense of hope, he was a dreamer.
That’s the point of the book. That’s why Fitzgerald made it so Daisy didn’t come to the funeral or “leave a single flower”, and why her character was likeable right up into the last chapter: showing her true colors. Truly one of the greatest works of literature of all time.
its amazing how within 20 minutes of these 2 videos I've been more intrigued in this book than in all of the hours we've talked about it in my english class
Batman Drinks Pepsi True, the teacher can't make me care about it.But I did care about it, and enjoyed the book. But most teachers are so horrible at teaching that kids end up hating books that they would otherwise enjoy with a good teacher.
To talk about Jay Gatsby I think we have to separate the idea of "great" and "good" because yes, Gatsby was undoubtedly great. He accomplished "The American Dream" and became "great" but in order to do so, he gave up on being "good".
+Teriza Marvell Did Gatsby accomplish the American Dream, though? Or did he chase it throughout his life, only to die ultimately because of his desire for something he could not have?
+Nina Cruz Nah, he definitely achieved it in the full and literal sense of the term. He died because he wanted more than the American Dream, he essentially wanted to change his entire past so that he could be with Daisy in his new "great" and rich stature. He wanted too much but he very much achieved the American Dream.
He did get a lot of wealth. I also see him as successful. I don't think he was happy once he got the dream. Maybe he would've been happier being suspended in a state of constant pursuit, with Daisy always just beyond that green light.
Teriza Marvell he did not accomplish the American Dream. That’s what he was after, it’s why he was so in love with Daisy. She was his green light, his hope for the end to his strive for happiness. He thought that if he could get her he could finally be fulfilled and happy with life.
+Sarah A. Mubarak depends if you deem bootlegging to be a moral line of work- it is exploiting those who are dependant on alcohol in order to accumulate your own gains.
+Izzy I'd say one can still be great in a job that is questionably moral. A soldier's job is essential killing other people but they can be great. Explores are in many ways great though they my precipitate colonialism and many negative things. I don't know I'd call Gatsby great, but tragically human and I think that's OK.
Dear John, please make more Crash Course Literature (more specifically more Gatsby ones) because you explain it so well and are obviously passionate about it.
I just read this for the first time. It was a dense read, because every sentence was packed with detail and care. But whether Gatsby was great? I think he was in a way. I can't help but admire his dedication, knowing I'm as stupid as he is in chasing something which I know isn't as perfect as I imagine. That or I don't admire great people and I'm a fool, which is always a large possibility.
He's an individual who was born into a world with nothing, to accumulate and achieve so much, purely due to his drive to do so. That to me is what makes Gatsby great, a man whom over men can, and may, look up to. Though I'm sure we all agree that women, especially Daisy, may not be worth it in some cases
I see this as his way of acknowledging how common it is to not think deeply about complicated questions. So many of us make assumptions, or treat issues as black and white, or want to quickly sum everything up. Maybe we aren't mature enough, or don't take the time, or we just don't like the discomfort of uncertainty. All of these videos emphasize that life is richer and more complex than we thought it was when we were young.
*Gatsby* became *great* the moment he *envisioned a future of prosperity* for himself and adopted a name that would better suit his needs and ambitions. To say that the characters in the book are dull and uninteresting would constitute a lie since the characters were designed specifically for people to connect with them regardless. The fact that *he took risks* by joining the war and later the gangs of NYC proved that he was an extraordinary human being while still cowering at the utter simplicity of meeting a woman for tea. Finally, him being able to stay in the path he laid down for the sake of a *dream* (Daisy) he never had assurance for is *selfless*. Personally I think that was admirable and constituted _a beautiful death_. Thank you, Mr. Green for making these videos about my favorite piece of literature.
He worshiped Daisy but in order to get Daisy he needed to be great and host all these big parties, it why he never even drank or had a good time in the parties. It was written that when Gatsby first met Daisy that he lied about who he was, he said he had a good family situation and that well he was great.
SoaR Kuhn / Quit I disagree, having been to both, but I was simply pointing out that they aren't in a US public school if they're worried about A-Levels -___-
It's hard to tell whether or not Gatsby was truly great because so much of what we see of him is from Nick's romanticised perspective, and the image of this charismatic legendary symbol that Gatsby puts on. But yeah, I'd say he's great because he's a genuinely sympathetic character who's just so daring and ambitious and the scene where his father comes to the mansion after his death and is marvelling over all that his son obtained with Nick... even if, to readers, it's nothing more than Gatsby's rather pointlessly extravagant show of wealth for Daisy, it MEANT something to Jay Gatsby's father. It was the culmination of years of hard work in pursuit of an unattainable goal and, let's face it, most humans are always striving to better themselves. You can see in sportspeople, actors, etc.
I disagree. I think we have a more solid look into Gatsby's actual nature because we get it from a neutral third party. If we were to learn about Gatsby from his or even Daisy's perspective, I'm sure we'd get a lot more romanticized feelings and far less fact.
Sirius Black but is Nick really a neutral party in the book because he was not present in Gatsby's life when he stooped to selling alcohol illegally to become rich. Nick also only knows Daisy as a person who is married, and we change when we are with others, for her she is constantly around an arrogant and abusive man which made her feel insignificant. Nick did not have the time to really get to know the people he is talking about, so he cannot truly be neutral.
Molly Greenwood Yes, but he is also pretty much the only character in the book which is at least in some scenes and to some extent critical and questions the world around himself, all the other characters don't really see anything farther away from their own noses.
this is actually something i have been thinking about for a really long time because the Gatsby we see is Nick's Gatsby, and how can we be sure that Nick is reliable in his portrayal of him? But yeah I like what you said.. :)
Yes, I feel that Gatsby was a great man. Unfortunately, he was a great man who aspired for something unworthy of his pursuit. He was kind and warm and giving, but to all the wrong people. He built himself up from nothing to this fantastic life of mansions and high-class parties. He *was* the American Dream. This is what most Americans believe *is* the American Dream, or a similar variation of it. Some might even say it made him greater that he did it for love, that it was incredibly romantic of him to become so successful for Daisy and not for himself. I think, though, that most of us are coming to realize how unhealthy and hollow a dream that really is. He did all of that and ultimately lost his life for a woman that decided to stay comfortable in her miserable life with an unbearable asshole of a husband. His father was right. Had he used that ambition for real greatness, he could have done so much more.
Gatsby was Great. He was just mildly delusional and really motivated. He did great things and only wanted 1 thing, Daisy. This blinded him. He was living in the past. He just could not let go. Letting go can be one of the hardest things to do. When it comes to Gatsby, He had 1 goal and "Finding it, though, that's not the hard part. It's letting go." Father Elijah, Fallout New Vegas.
Gatsby for me had the potential to be great. Everything he did in a way was great. However his naivety and innocence in his passion for Daisy was what wasn't great. He fell into the trap of following after shiny bright fools gold.
Am I the only one who found the protagonists of Gatsby likable? Nick is a humble, relateable introvert. Jordan is a badass tomboy. Gatsby is just trying to acquire love, which he sees as being the only wealth that matters anymore. Even Daisy can't be said to be a bad person. She's just a victim of her abusive husband, and the misogynistic world she lives in, both of which tell her that she should be stupid and submissive to men.
Yes, but while the world seems to fight against her, she never fights back to make a place for herself, she just lays there and accepts that that is the way the world is. The fact that she never fought for herself and could never make a sure decision to improve her life, she allowed herself to be victimized by her own cowardice and indecision.
That's a very interesting take. I found Nick to be a hypocrite, Jordan to be shallow, Gatsby to be foolish, selfish, and downright delusional (not to mention a person who conflated obsession with love), and Daisy to be the worst of them all, because she is the one who sees the world for what it is and still chooses to turn a blind eye to it all while lounging in her wealth.
Nick is a horrid careless bystander, Jordan is, and i quote "incurably dishonest", Gatsby was kind, but filled with this life destroying obsession that erased all that was left of his personality, Daisy is a shallow, materialistic gold-digger (who ran after Gatsby died even after she claimed to love him) and though she did live i an oppressive society that did have an effect on her actions, she was born rich and felt extremely entitled to that lifestyle. Fitgerald seemed to be extremely pissed of at the wealthy and, as john said, their ability to go on being so careless. And reflected their corruption in his book. Don't get me wrong, even though the characters are generally not the best people, and we aren't used to seeing books where even the protagonist has awful faults. Does not mean that the characters are badly writte or uninteresting, it just means that they are unlikable and i beleive they were created like that on purpose.
The definition of "great" is to an extent, amount or intensity considerably above average. To me Gatsby is considerably above average in the form of intensity. His feelings and emotions are intense and passionate, his dreams go so far as to push him down a dangerous and irreparable path. He thinks with such an intense sense of desire and craving for daisy that caution is thrown to the wind. He is overwhelmingly awesome and at the same time he's a hard headed and obnoxious person. So yeah I think Gatsby is great not in the sense of being awe inspiring or fantastical but in the sense that he was greatly passionate and carried a considerable amount of intensity with him where lever he went.
Jay Gatsby was, I believe, definitely one of the most spectacular and more so inspiring human beings ever to show his face in literature. I mean, there is a reason why he is the only man that Nick isn't disgusted with by the end of the book and in Nick's words is "worth more than all of the rest put together." We have to realize that even though his fortune wasn't exactly came into by the most righteous of ways, his capacity for hope is absolutely astounding when obviously his dream was a little too ambitious (okay maybe more than a little ambitious) Coming from such small and hopeless beginnings to where Gatsby got to and still hoping for a perfect world as if he could unfreeze the past. And even though Daisy might have been sort of an item to him, like the last piece of the puzzle, it is his legacy to never give up that we should learn from. And that the American Dream, though a noble pursuit has grown out of control ever since 1776 and has turned nice, humble people into power hungry, greedy, and careless monsters (almost like Daisy, Tom, and Jordan, except they were kind of born into it so to say and their life seems to be the exact thing that Gatsby and others want to have)
because it is too hard to objectify a child, so they hold no superficially idealized value? maybe Gatsby's unused books, i wonder, the foregone potential of that which requires affection not possession. possessing the american dream v playing with it, and knowing the games it likes to play which it maybe stands the risk of also forgetting, though maybe not growing out of? but regardless, actively responding to play and warmth, not the calculated sophistry of facsimile input america as questing and life as ageless, books are as good left uncut or if read not mistaken for coronado despite the gold they may contain i don't know why going outside seems so hard right now. i think the green light is staring into the new-tech of the age trying to find your own angle to capitalize on it. not even enjoying the content, just spinning your wheels while taking in the outside world as an inexorably remote agenda that you're trying to learn the password to infiltrate. from plato to this outside is the freedom of future generations not being squandered in your own lifetime, not begrudging a walk for the sake of honoring Lit101 interpretations. but in a sense i feel like so much of what i am is a false history. Jay Gatsby is great because he isn't james gatz. but what is greatness and what is james gatz, ergo what is the difference between a question and a statement, and we all deserve better is the only lesson adequate to teach to Daisy. it isn't right to suggest that as sentimental or emotional. it is both, but you live to understand what it is she deserves to learn. the alternative is the lorax. or to envy a 'fancy party'.
What I find fascinating about the scene in New York when Gatsby tries to make Daisy say she never loved Tom is that idea that he doesn't just want her back. He wants everything to be perfect. As if Daisy admitting she married Tom more for convenience (ie money) than out of actual feelings for him, that makes the betrayal less in some way. Their reunion will be "great" in some way if she has spent the past 5 years secretly pinning over him in the same way he has.
I’m a little sad this didn’t have time to get into my favorite aspect of the novel: “passing” as it relates to sexuality and ethnicity. Okay, hear me out: for those who don’t know, at the tail end of chapter 3, our intrepid narrator Nick is in an elevator with a man, and they’re talking about getting lunch sometime. There’s some very minor innuendo, and then a smash cut... to Nick lying in the other man’s bed. They’re both in their underwear, and the other man is showing Nick his photography portfolio. “Wait what?!” you say? “I don’t remember that!” To be perfectly honest, most people overlooked it for years until some brave soul or other finally shouted out “IS NO ONE GONNA MENTION THE FACT THAT NICK HAD SEX WITH A GUY?” People started looking into it more, and noticed that Jordan Baker (Nick’s casual-kinda-girlfriend) bears a lot of similarities to 20s icon Josephine Baker, and is very queer coded. Being described as boyish, flat chested, outspoken, aggressive, athletic, and coltish might not scream “lesbian” nowadays, but back then it was pretty heavy queercoding. So we have two people in a relationship, one who is confirmed to sleep with men, and the other who is queercoded, neither of whom seem to be particularly interested in the other, or hurt by the other’s disinterest. They’re passing as straight to allow them to maintain their high society status. Similarly, there is the question of ethnicity and religion, and specifically Jewish identity. Of course we have Meyer Wolfsheim, a somewhat stereotypical if not unrealistic mob boss and bootlegger, and business associate of Jay Gatsby’s. But we also have Gatsby himself, whose REAL name is James Gatz. Whether that’s a German-Slavic name, a Jewish name, or both has been hotly debated, as has the likelihood of an upperclassman gentile like Gatsby associating with the Jewish Wolfsheim without some shared background (discrimination and outright segregation applied much more to Jews in the early 1900s than they did later on). But regardless of the truth, the fact remains that Gatsby changed his name likely to avoid such insinuations from others. Jay’s, Daisy’s AND Jordan’s identity as WASPs is repeatedly called into question throughout the novel, especially in the scenes with Tom Buchanan and his racist pseudoscientific rants. Whether or not it’s true isn’t nearly as important as the fact that they have to constantly put on the performance of whiteness, trying to appear as WASPy as possible so they can keep their place in high society. These issues of passing serve to underscore the themes of The Great Gatsby: the inaccessibility of the American Dream, the continuing presence of an elite aristocracy, and the reeeally slow integration of other (see: not straight, white, and Protestant) identities into the American mainstream, despite those identities still being socially unacceptable. ...thank you for coming to my TED Talk. In other news, WHY DO I WRITE ESSAYS IN RU-vid COMMENTS???
This is the most beautiful and the most sad novel I've ever read. I cry a little every time. Gatsby was ambitious, but he chased things he cold not get. He wanted too much.He was a great man, in my opinion, but his desires clouded his mind in a sense.
Odds are that I'm elevating myself a bit too much in this opinion, but for myself... I think there's greatness in hope. I'm a hoper. It's what's kept me going in this world in so many ways. Maybe it's hope that gives the strength to go on, or some inner strength that allows us to hope. Whatever it is, I feel as though I can't help but hope, because to do anything else is to surrender to entropy. For myself, the decision is made, and every time that I can diminish fear, anger, hopelessness, or sadness... that's a small victory... even if only for a few seconds... five minutes... an hour. Still, it's important to realize that it's not about winning a war... or achieving perfection, or bringing harmony to the world in a grand movement. It's about saying "I want to make the world a better place," making a decision to change the world... and then acting. Won't always work. Hell, usually won't work. In the end, it is a matter of beating on, boats against the current.Nothing lasts forever. It's foolish to expect it to. But we live in the here and now, and we can work to make a future that we can be happy with. To quote Cloud Atlas, "I am not deceived. It is the hardest of worlds to make real... A life spent shaping a world I want Jackson to inherit, not one I fear Jackson shall inherit, this strikes me as a life worth the living."
I think that's kind of the point. Hopelessness is not the answer. Without hope, without drive and ambition, there can be no greatness. No triumph. But hope should always be tempered with logic, and realism, for there is nothing crueler then a false dream.
BTW, the Prohibition was a great idea, but was executed poorly. See, before the Prohibition, people were drinking alcohol like it was nobody's business. Husbands would come home drunk to beat their wives. Children would drink alcohol because alcohol was easier to attain than fresh water. Everyone was drunk all the time, so the Prohibition happened and tried to ban all the booze. However, the idea of banning something entirely is a pretty dumb endeavor. Hence the end of the Prohibition era and the beginning of lots and lots of regulations.
All forms of prohibition past and present, around the world, for all sorts of intoxicating substances have been 'executed poorly'. Those social problems did not disappear during prohibition, and neither did drinking. I don't think it can be said that prohibition is a good idea, when every single implementation of it has been an abysmal failure, causing far more destruction than the prohibited substance themselves.
Really? I always read that everyone used to drink alcohol because it was generally safer than drinking water in the pre-sanitation days. Spreading disease and all that. How was alcohol easier to obtain than water?
And how do you execute the eschewing of basic human rights "successfuly"? When has it ever been a good idea to prosecute victimless crimes? When has it ever been a good idea to control what people put into their bodies? As someone with several alcoholics in my family, I know full well how despicable a thing drink is, but I'd never advocate making people criminals for it.
No. Wrong. Prohibition was never a good idea. Since literally the dawn of civilization people drank fermented slightly alcoholic ales and beers over water. "Fresh water" was an idea that did not exist until recently. People couldn't drink water from sources around where they lived for a multitude of reasons, most having to do with sewers. People were not constantly and forever drunk before Prohibition. Children were not weaned off of their mother's breast to suckle on a bottle of gin. Prohibition came from pressure from temperance groups, aka churches, that wanted to eradicate the evils of liquor. Except they had little to no understanding of how addiction worked and failed to realize that alcohol did not create domestic violence. The evils of the world were not done away with because they made alcohol illegal, in fact it gave rise to new evils. You can't write a law to dictate how people should think or what they should consume. It has NEVER worked. Drugs are illegal so obviously nobody takes drugs, right? The legal US drinking age is 21 so NOBODY under 21 has ever had alcohol.
I agree that Gatsby was "Great." I believe this because he, to quote Nick, "had an extraordinary gift for hope." No matter what happened to him, he continued to believe that Daisy would leave Tom and marry him.
I don't know if anyone else noticed this: I watch all of my videos with closed captions for some reason. At the end of their Crash Course videos, they always say, "don't forget to be awesome." This is really funny, because in Closed Captioning it always has this fun fact. For example, in this video, it was a fun fact about NASA. You guys should check it out.
Personally, I think Jay Gatsby was a good man with a good heart, but his heart was set on the wrong girl. He could have been happy and all that pain and tragedy been avoided had he not been so obsessed with Daisy.
James Gatz was a bootlegger who got rich fast, without working hard. I think the term "Great" is used as an ironic way of saying money and success are seen as great qualities, even though the means to achieving said qualities may be foul and wrong.
On top of that, he may have procured the liquor, but who was actually drinking it? The Prohibition wasn't meant to strictly punish sellers of alcohol, but those who recklessly consumed it and spent their wages on it and wandered around drunk in the streets. Prohibiting the sale of it was the effect rather than the cause. So who was breaking the law worse--Gatsby or the other upper crust? As for building one's fortune by illegal means, well. Hey there, Wall Street. I do agree the term 'great' is used ironically, but less for his bootlegged wealth and more for his pitiful motivations and goal. It serves to highlight Gatsby had the means to make himself great, and he certainly had the wealth and airs of what society considered great at the time, but his refusal to let go of the past and utilize his great potential beyond 'get the girl and relive the past' made him insignificant. And dead. Ugh, I'm never using the word 'great' in a sentence again.
If set to your standard, every rich character should be titled 'Great' in the book, except Gatsby. Tom, Nick, and Daisy all inherited/acquired money; they not only didn't work hard, they didn't work for it at all. And the people they inherited it from are terrible human beings. Nick from his grand uncle who paid someone to fight for him in the civil war. Daisy got her money from marrying Tom. And Tom got his money from old money, and well old money is known for coming about because of things like the enslavement of people, the exploitation of people, subjugation of people.
The one character who worked harder than anyone was Wolfshiem, he is also the most despised for being a Jew bootleger and unmannered. He also has a Germanic name, as does Gatz the most nordic or Anglo Saxon character. He's shown to be brilliant by his notes and as suggsted by Wolfsheim, but unlike Wolfsheim he hides the source of his wealth and adopts an English name. Thus Gatsby is hiding that he is more of a productive Nordic than Buchannan, and both are less productive than Wolfshiem. In a sence Gatsby is trying to not only be rich but old money. This is futile since Buchanan (and to an extent Carraway)is not concerned about his race of rise, but the threat he posed to the established order.
I think that what we must remember when reading this novel is that we are reading it through the perspective of retrospective narrator Nick. Although he is initially seemingly outside of the action, it becomes evident that he becomes an important vehicle that drives us to the novel's messages. So, in theory, the question we must debate is did Nick see Gatsby as great? He constantly goes back on himself, from the "foul dust" to "Gatsby turned out alright in the end". Just a thought.
Imogen Killner *Also my AS Level exam is on Friday and one of the assessment objectives is own interpretation and offering other interpretations, and this crash course helped a lot. John Green, you literary God.
I read this book and when I read it was really hard for me to understand the story ,the only thing I think I got from it is that we try to achieve things or an idea of a better future, though we don't realize what it could actually lead to. Gatsby's efforts are to be appreciated but his idea that happiness can only come from one person is wrong. Also the video gave me some new perspectives about it, so thank you sm.
Gatsby was great because of his innocence. This isn't innocence in a sense that he was without faults or crimes. He had a simple desire to have Daisy love him. This desire compelled him to become one of the richest man in New York. In the novel Nick says that Gatsby is worth more than everyone in East Egg put together. The novel clearly states he is great. But the people in the ashes like Mr. Wilson was innocent also. Thats where the issue comes from the book is written in the perspective of the elite class. Although it isn't mentioned the educated elite do care about the people who live in the lower class because of the simpleness. A simple dream can inspire people to do great things as did Gatsby. But people saw his innocence as a threat because such a simple dream as wanting someone is very hard stop. This is why Tom insults Gatsby behind his back saying he's a strange man and that women run around to much, despite the fact he does this with Myrtle. The power of simple mindedness is best shown through Wilson. He wanted nothing but give the life he thought his wife deserved. His simpleness and innocence blinds him from what Myrtle truly is similar to how Gatsby's innocence blinds him from seeing that Daisy isn't the perfect flower he thinks she is. Ultimately the desire of an unachievable innocent dream is the most deadly. Wilson killed and killed himself for Myrtle and Gatsby's dream led to his own demise. His innocent dream scared and enraged Tom to the point where he knew that Wilson was after the man who slept with his wife Tom pointed to Gatsby. In conclusion Gatsby was great because of the determination of having a simple innocent desire gives a person.
Looking forward to more Crash Course literature on writers such as Edgar Allan Poe and Ernest Hemingway. These classes make you think and wonder about life. Absolutely love them!
Incredibly video, well thought out and interesting. Just hearing those opening lines again made me itch to grab Gatsby off the shelf and go through it again. To answer the question provided: Gatsby is undoubtedly a great man, but even great men have their flaws. His was his love of an unworthy woman, but it's this love that propelled him to become the great man. He's the right man, for the wrong reasons.
To understand if Gatsby is great, I think you must look at the different meanings of the word great, itself. Secondly, great is a subjective concept. Gatsby is great in Nick's eyes. If great is taken to mean of a large size Gatsby is great in personality, flamboyance, and in his hope and aspirations. However, despite having great drive to reach his goals, his goals in themselves are not great: Daisy. Daisy is vacuous, careless and does not seem 'great' enough to warrant Gatsby's great effort to win her. Great could also mean great morally and as a great role-model. Gatsby is not this: he has come by his money illegally; he is manipulative; and his life, like the other characters, is quite empty if you look at it in terms of making an impact on the world. Yet he does not drink - if it were not for his society's disregard for prohibition he could have been perceived as great in his regard for the law by other characters. Despite my argument here, in the context of the 1920s no one seems to care about his illegal means of procuring wealth nor his falsities. I think Gatsby is great as he is infamous. Like a circus caller, as JG says 'Roll up for the Great Gatsby!'. Filtered through Nick's perspective the reader admires Gatsby as Nick does, as a unique person unmatchable by any other. Secondly, the novel itself of which he is titled as great is great: Gatsby endures with this adjectival prefix to his name.
Gatsby pressures Daisy to make a choice but along with the choice that involves himself, he wants her to admit a lie that he should already see would be a lie to Daisy and himself. But, will he truly be satisfied if she were to admit this or would he end up wanting more? It's not the answers that interest me, but the fact that questions pop up just after those answers. Questions that you yourself have to make up or put together from opinions and facts and your own beliefs.
I sincerely love Gatsbys irony within this whole book. The fact that he labels himself as one thing but really is another how he does so much to make a name for himself. To live in a world where hope is all that he has to feed on. In hope to reach the green light that he never was able to get. Yet, Gatsby was Brest, he made a life of his own just to try to buy his way to happiness that saddlt didn't prevail.
I believe Gatsby was a great man with great intentions, however his intentions were tragically too idealistic which ultimately caused his downfall. He is great because idealism is a great and is something that we can all relate to but being unrealistic in life can also cause our demise. He was great because everything wasn't handed to him, he had to work for it unlike those born into wealth like Daisy and Tom, he set goals for himself and he reached a lot of them, all but his ultimate goal of winning Daisy's love.
I love not only the beauty in the description of this novel and its beautiful descriptions, but the knowledge thrown upon us as if it were impending doom during a pillow fight, seemingly overwhelming, yet fragile and comforting.
I have my Lit exam tomorrow and this is giving me hope of a solid pass, thank you. Also, I think Gatsby undeniably did many great things, however it is the morality and true intention behind his actions that can dimmish how 'right/good' we perceive his greatness to be, for perhaps his true greatness lied in the accomplishment of full-heartedly believing in his own delusions.
One might think the Great Gatsby is a tragedy. But it is not. For at a brief moment in time, he knew, with all his heart, that his love was waiting on the other side of the phone. Nothing could have saved him from his truth. All his desires, ambitions, efforts, and pain were realized and worthy for one brief moment in time. And as he reached for the phone awash in elation and desire, for once in his life, he was complete, satisfied and happy. In the selfish and cold world of Gasby, there could be no more other happy ending than this.
Should of saved the *Holden Caulfield Thinks You're a Phony.* shirt for The Catcher in the Rye review, and worn the *TJ Eckleburg is Judging YOU!* shirt instead.
I absolutely agree with your statement about Gatsby. He was a good man; he knew what he wanted- the life he wanted- and he dedicated everything to get it. I just think he was so deeply entranced in that one thing- in Daisy- that he never got to enjoy his huge house or his pool or his parties. Every single thing he did was to try to get Daisy back and live the life he'd dreamed of but he never does realize that his dream had died years ago and it was never going to happen.
Idk if this was done intentionally, but the fact that “young” John Green was wearing a Holden Caulfield shirt while naively saying Gatsby was a bad person is really fitting. Holden immediately judges without giving a second thought, which is kinda what’s happening there. It’s also slightly ironic, because in the novel, Holden says he admires Gatsby
what John talked about in these two videos is exactly what i keep disagreeing with my english teacher about. she beleives that the characters are weak, uninteresting characters because they are so unlikable. But i agree with Johm, they are, for the mostpart, intellegently created and complex all with different values that are still mostly centred around this hollow emptiness that is supposed to be the "american dream"
I mean, I agree that the book does a great job of reminding us all how hopeless life in america is. I mean, it's very very difficult and one would have to either be very lucky or very privileged to have a chance at perusing The American Dream. Also how the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor and the rich prey on the poor without much care or consequence. As far as Gatsby....at first he was easy to love, he was very charming and everything. But when he starts to lose control of Daisy (she won't tell Tom that she never loved him...(Because surprise! Daisy is a human being and not an object "wife" trophy to win/keep/control)) he ...becomes unrecognizable. He becomes a desperate controlling manipulative person and honestly it is a bit scary and I didn't blame Daisy for being upset. So I don't know. I think it's charming that he wanted to better himself and make his dreams come true, but I think it's important to remember that people have their own autonomy and probably shouldn't be to involved in dream planning because they're not really controllable. merpaderp
The Great Gatsby is one of my FAVORITE novels. My boyfriend hates it, and I just can't even begin to explain to him why he is wrong. This novel left me speechless, and everything John says about it is so true. GREAT episode. GREAT book.
I love literature and I've been out of school for a year because of health issues. Your videos have made it easy and fun for me to keep learning while I can't be at school! Thank you!
I asolutely love Crash Course! It's such a great tool. John, do you think that you can do a literature section on "The Scarlet Letter"? I think it would be very helpful because reading that book is like reading a concrete wall.
In my opinion, Jay Gatsby was a GREAT man. It takes A LOT of determination to devote so much time in trying to get a girl back. But he wasn't fit for that life. He cared too much, in opposition with the Buchanans and all the people that attended his partys BUT DIDN'T GO TO HIS FUNERAL. I love that story, but i'm mad at Daisy for NOT EVEN attend the funerals. Plus it makes me super sad that Gatsby was waiting for Daisy's phone call, but it was Nick. Gatsby lost from the beggining, but he was great by coming from a poor background and ending as a successful, yet not careless enough, man.
Gatsby was great, on one hand. He loved one person in his lifetime, he became rich and successful, he had a loyal best friend (Nick) and he used his drive and ambition to survive the war and live his American dream. However, Gatsby earned all of his money immorally, Gatsby only became Nick's friend as a way to get to his cousin, Daisy never loved him completely, some could say he idolized Daisy more than loved her and in the end, no one but Nick and his father, a man he left behind showed up to his funeral.Though hundreds of people were happy to come to his parties, drink his alcohol and take advantage of his hospitality, nobody truly loved Gatsby in the end.
Gatsby was indeed a great man. His goal is the one that we all have. As John said, his ambitions were the American Dream: to work towards a lifetime achievement and receive it. He is relatable in the sense that his exact wants were not realistic yet he keeps striving obliviously for them. It is not his logic, but spiritual and emotional self that makes him rememberable.
Now at 24, looking back to recently, I was reaching out to some distant part of me and trying to reclaim it. But IT didn't exist, and never did, it was a false memory of who I was at a time just as difficult as now.
Both yes and no haha. It seems to me that both you and your commenters have made plenty of good points debating this question. Personally I feel like our opinions are heavily skewed by the narrator in this case :) because Nick is so pro-Gatsby!
The Great Gatsby, the movie, even have my favorite quote from the book: "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy--they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money of their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
We discussed an interesting aspect of the title "The Great Gatsby" in English class. While the title means the obvious especially after reading the book, and there's a nice alliteration going on, it's funny because it sounds like a title of a circus act. Like this "Great Gatsby" was just a farce or an entertainment (his parties, at the very least), something that isn't truly real and simply beyond your imagination, even something that is almost, maybe, laughable and amusing to watch. And, you know, from the way the parties are always described (and after I watched the movie - the recent one), it does feel like a circus. Sometimes people use the word 'circus' to describe something really crazy and uncontrollable, borderline chaotic and maybe even ridiculous. Not saying that Gatsby (or the contents of the book) is crazy/uncontrollable/chaotic/ridiculous, but I thought it was an interesting aspect that the title of "The Great Gatsby" made me think of a circus act performance (as described in 3:02). Just food for thought really.
"I suppose he’d had the name ready for a long time, even then. His parents were shiftless and unsuccessful farm people - his imagination had never really accepted them as his parents at all. The truth was that Jay Gatsby of West Egg, Long Island, sprang from his Platonic conception of himself. He was a son of God - a phrase which, if it means anything, means just that - and he must be about His Father’s business, the service of a vast, vulgar, and meretricious beauty." -Quote from Great Gatsby. If anything made Gatsby great it was this. In reality it is what makes any of us great. In learning what this passage means we discover a world of TRUTH (whether it was intended by the author or not) and as what John said choosing carefully what we "worship" (direct our intention to and where our hopes lie). Unfortunatley, his hopes were laid in the false promise of a "meritricious beauty." Let us not endeavour to make the same mistake.
I was never made to read this during high school, so this summer before college I picked it up and read it in one go, forcing myself at times because I can't always get involved in classic literature. But these two videos have given me such a new appreciation for Fitzgerald's work, and I'm sure he'd be pleased of this interpretation. It sure pleased me! Thank you Crash Course!
I just love that John chokes up when reading the quote about the Dutch sailors and that man must have held his breath back then ..."face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder". That sentence and that sentiment is so beautiful and nostalgic as to beat almost anything. I also ALWAYS choke up at the word "history", just like our friend here :-) (it's at 2:02ish)
I'm interested in hearing this from other people but did anyone else get the implicit homosexual vibes coming from Nick? I mean there's that weird passage in the Elevator and at some point I swear he mentions about how getting older will mean there are less single men around him. Just what I picked up, anyone else feel this?
Yes - he actually disregarded an engagement to a woman when Daisy asked him about it pretending it never happened, and when he got drunk at Myrtles apartment he skimmed over the fact he was in the elevator with a married man, then his room, then the train station. Not to mention that his relationship to be fair is quite rocky with Jordan. Maybe this is because Fitzgeralds own wife accused him of being homosexual too? Just my thoughts, because I picked up on it too, and although it's not specific to my course, I find it interesting
I also picked that up. I found it in the way he described Gatsby, almost putting him up on a pedestal. And the way Nick kept up with Gatsby through the entire book, even when he claimed to not care...
Also also, I feel that it's important to note that although he says he loves Jordan Baker, it's never really that deep. There aren't entire passages just going on about her traits. Not to say he couldn't love both Jordan and Gatsby... But I feel like he maybe tricked himself into thinking he was in love with Jordan.
American writer I first got hand on was Mark Twain, he mesmerised me with his adventures of Tom Sawyer in 6th Standard. Thanks Mr. Green for introducing another great piece of American Literature
I think Gatsby was great because he was by far the most "human" person of anyone in the book. Compared to the idle people in his entourage Gatsby had feelings and emotions regarding other people, in this case, daisy. Gatsby seems like the only person who seems relatable who has feelings and expresses them. He has goals, if that means to spend his entire life trying to accomplish the seemingly impossible is a distinctly great thing. If we measure greatness by how human we are. Gatsby certainly was a great person
I find it fascinating that Gatsby spends his life searching for a life that could have been yet not participating in the life he's living. Even more so, with all of the artificial items he owns, in his death, does he lose his idealism by finally taking a swim in that artificial pool...I don't think so. Gatsby, the eternal idealist, was a beautiful fool.
"You can basically tap your foot to The Great Gatbsy". It's scary how accurate that is - I read the whole book doing just that, and It felt like my whole being was in a crescendo of movement. Creepy.
