Lordredeye wrote:The Great Gatsby is so over rated. Its a story of rich snobs, big woop. If you want to read some good books go read the Dark Tower series by Steven King
It also pisses me off that a good story cant just be a good story, it has to have some deep symbolic meaning to it. When I read something im not surching for the authors symboilc referances, im reading to enjoy a well written story. Period
TheRaven7 wrote:I disagree. Deep symbolic meaning is a myth they teach you in high school so they can have an excuse for making you read something that otherwise wouldn't have any meaning. The main point isn't hard to understand; old rich snobs have their own society with its own rules. From there, you can pull out a bunch of symbols and coincidences that might mean something, but aren't really relevant to anything, just like the book isn't relevant to anybody who might read it. But then, is any fiction? If it's relevant, it's probably non-fiction.
Fitzgerald wrote: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. So he invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen-year-old boy would be likely to invent, and to this conception he was faithful to the end.
Cass wrote:[You don't understand the book, and you don't understand what you don't understand about it. As such, you also won't understand what I'm saying.]
Gorbadoc wrote:I'd call you an arrogant prick except that you're right.
TheRaven7 wrote:If you reread that quote, all it gives is a theory that the character Jay Gatsby is based on Fitzgerald's platonic conception of himself. It does not say that Fitzgerald wrote the story with the intention of demonstrating the failure of platonic conception, nor does it say that the story accomplishes that regardless.
And now I totally have no idea what this thread is about.
Lordredeye wrote:Regardless of what the book is or is not about, I didnt like it at all. On the other hand i enjoyed the Steven King books. That and half a pack of cigs is enough to get me through the day.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest