Every newspaper and magazine from Juno Alaska to John O'Groats in the UK is featuring this film. Dakka cannot be left behind, Dakka cannot be seen to be a cultural wasteland!
Reading the GG is every high school kid's worst nightmare, but here on Dakka we need to ask the hard questions:
Will you be watching it at the cinema?
Is it reflective of the American dream turned sour?
I found the novel was overly blunt with its metaphors and pretty dull, but then again, I was taught it in an English class where every book/play is like that (lots of Shakespeare...). The chances of it being better than the current film are probably high at least...
Ardaric_Vaanes wrote: Should be a maybe option in the polls, because I may just see it depending on what it is exactly.
Do you like action films? The GG is about a US special forces unit deployed in Central America who find themselves mysteriously being killed off by a hunter from another world.
Spoiler:
it's about rich people in 1920s America.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: I found the novel was overly blunt with its metaphors and pretty dull, but then again, I was taught it in an English class where every book/play is like that (lots of Shakespeare...). The chances of it being better than the current film are probably high at least...
Ma55ter_fett wrote: While my highschool english teacher was a cool person, she was absolute gak at teaching english.
As such I've only ever heard about the book but have never read it.
Now's your chance to right a historical wrong, to infuse your life with culture. The GG is an American institution. Even the founding fathers predicted it and included it in the amendments: "the right of the people to keep and bear Great Gatsby books shall not be infringed."
I found the Great Gatsby to be a terribly dull novel whose primary point could have been surmised in a twenty page short story. That twenty page short story conveniently made up the last twenty pages of the book.
I bet you secretly choose absolutely as your poll option. Your secret's safe with me
*disclaimer, I will not in fact kill you, even if your taste in literature is questionable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: The GG is about over-privileged and spoiled young adults born with silver spoons and creating drama.
You're mixing up the GG with the story of the Kennedy family
There's really a difference?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now that I'm thinking about it, the Kennedy family and GG really ARE similar. An obsession with reclaiming past glories, extreme wealth, lots of sex, adultery and some murder against and by family members...
It's a bland book that most American's were forced to read in High School that's being made into a movie with that guy from the Electric Company when he was very young.
I admit that I am surprised at the sheer number of people who really don't understand the book. You could only tell the story in twenty pages if you just relate basic plot elements, but if you do that you might as well make it one page, and then also pretend that things like phrasing, characterization, verisimilitude, metaphor, and other silly things like that aren't important to writing. I think some of the hate comes from being forced to read it.
It's a bland book that most American's were forced to read in High School that's being made into a movie with that guy from the Electric Company when he was very young.
I imagine the conclusion we reached last time we did this won't have changed; dakka is largely comprised of uncultured heathens who are unable to appreciate one of the greatest pieces of American literature ever written.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Every newspaper and magazine from Juno Alaska to John O'Groats in the UK is featuring this film. Dakka cannot be left behind, Dakka cannot be seen to be a cultural wasteland!
Reading the GG is every high school kid's worst nightmare, but here on Dakka we need to ask the hard questions:
Will you be watching it at the cinema?
Is it reflective of the American dream turned sour?
What the feth is it really about?
I would rather stab myself in the family jewels with a rusty spoon than watch that film.
I admit that I am surprised at the sheer number of people who really don't understand the book. You could only tell the story in twenty pages if you just relate basic plot elements, but if you do that you might as well make it one page, and then also pretend that things like phrasing, characterization, verisimilitude, metaphor, and other silly things like that aren't important to writing. I think some of the hate comes from being forced to read it.
At the same time I was forced to read the Great Gatsby, I was reading such joys as The Golden Torc, the musings of John Locke, Othello, Howard's Conan series, Noble House, the entire Time Life series of WWII, and Lucifer's Hammer. Imagine my wailing and gnashing of tears to have then read GG, and discuss it ad nauseum for weeks. GG was dogshit compared to, well everything. Of course this is my humble opinion, but if you disagree with it you obviously are in league with Satan.
Frazzled wrote: Its quite good isn't it. A comet hitting the earth from a more hard science perspective. Have you tried The Mote inGod's Eye and FootFall?
Yep. Lucifer's Hammer has always been my favorite though.
The Scarlet Letter was a better book than The Great Gatsby and I can think of few books dryer than the Scarlet Letter where you literally read about a puddle for a page and a half (and then you read about a leaf).
I also had to read the Crucible in High School and that was a play (and still more enjoyable than Gatsby).
I can respect it as a decent and impactful book, but that doesn't stop it from being dull and using a sledgehammer to convey all of its metaphors. All of which make for the perfect novel to study in a literature. class. =P
I admit that I am surprised at the sheer number of people who really don't understand the book. You could only tell the story in twenty pages if you just relate basic plot elements, but if you do that you might as well make it one page, and then also pretend that things like phrasing, characterization, verisimilitude, metaphor, and other silly things like that aren't important to writing. I think some of the hate comes from being forced to read it.
I've used some hyperbole here, in this thread. Mainly in jest. I didn't care for the book, but recognize that its on many literary best lists.
I really preferred the sequel to To Kill a Mockingbird to the book itself, To Grill a Mockingbird, 170 avian recipes. Inspired self satire by the author.
What i have to say about that book for fill a book three times it size. in 4 point font.
I hate that book with a passion, It simbilizes everything that is wrong with high school literature.
The Great Gatsby is tied with 1984 for my favorite novel I've had to read in English. The worst is probably Their Eyes Were Watching God or A Beautiful Mind. Oh lord were those books awful.
As for the movie, I'll probably end up watching it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: What i have to say about that book for fill a book three times it size. in 4 point font.
I hate that book with a passion, It simbilizes everything that is wrong with high school literature.
Exquisite agreement. Now lets break that down for an entire class to find my deep meaning.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Words to remember: No story was every written with English teachers in mind.
Well, except for Lord of the Flies, which was written by a schoolteacher with a degree in english literature.
But even then, I doubt said teacher say down and said "Well I'm going to layer in THIS subtext and hidden meaning for people to puzzle and talk about for the next couple centuries" as opposed to the writing technique of the great Bard "Eh I'll throw a fart joke in there, that always gets a laugh..."
LordofHats wrote: I found the Great Gatsby to be a terribly dull novel whose primary point could have been surmised in a twenty page short story. That twenty page short story conveniently made up the last twenty pages of the book.
Could you provide some historical perspective please?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Of ourse I will watch it. The title says that it is Great!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Every newspaper and magazine from Juno Alaska to John O'Groats in the UK is featuring this film. Dakka cannot be left behind, Dakka cannot be seen to be a cultural wasteland!
Reading the GG is every high school kid's worst nightmare, but here on Dakka we need to ask the hard questions:
Will you be watching it at the cinema?
Is it reflective of the American dream turned sour?
What the feth is it really about?
I would rather stab myself in the family jewels with a rusty spoon than watch that film.
I admit that I am surprised at the sheer number of people who really don't understand the book. You could only tell the story in twenty pages if you just relate basic plot elements, but if you do that you might as well make it one page, and then also pretend that things like phrasing, characterization, verisimilitude, metaphor, and other silly things like that aren't important to writing. I think some of the hate comes from being forced to read it.
At the same time I was forced to read the Great Gatsby, I was reading such joys as The Golden Torc, the musings of John Locke, Othello, Howard's Conan series, Noble House, the entire Time Life series of WWII, and Lucifer's Hammer. Imagine my wailing and gnashing of tears to have then read GG, and discuss it ad nauseum for weeks. GG was dogshit compared to, well everything. Of course this is my humble opinion, but if you disagree with it you obviously are in league with Satan.
Frazz, I've prayed to every god who will listen that your wife demands to be taken to the cinema to see the GG and you are forced to watch it four times in a row
Automatically Appended Next Post: I get the impression that people on this site would rather shoot guns, drink beer, and push bits of plastic around the tabletop than watch the GG. Heathens!!!
You don't deserve to be Americans!!
In a hundred years time when the Chinese take over and America declines, historians will say that they had more resources and more people, but we will know the truth....
The truth being that China beat us down into mental stagnation with gakky cinema and secret agents forcing us to read tripe like the Great Gatsby in high school instead of doing something productive?
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Words to remember: No story was every written with English teachers in mind.
Well, except for Lord of the Flies, which was written by a schoolteacher with a degree in english literature.
But even then, I doubt said teacher say down and said "Well I'm going to layer in THIS subtext and hidden meaning for people to puzzle and talk about for the next couple centuries" as opposed to the writing technique of the great Bard "Eh I'll throw a fart joke in there, that always gets a laugh..."
Hamlet stands as proof that you are wrong, good sir. And yeah, I think Golding actually did sit down and say something to that effect; I recall reading something about how displeased he was with the then-current reading list of trite, golly-gee-whiz BS (something akin to Swiss Family Robinson) that was being read in English classes at the time.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The truth being that China beat us down into mental stagnation with gakky cinema and secret agents forcing us to read tripe like the Great Gatsby in high school instead of doing something productive?
At last - somebody understands how the communist mind works!
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Words to remember: No story was every written with English teachers in mind.
Well, except for Lord of the Flies, which was written by a schoolteacher with a degree in english literature.
But even then, I doubt said teacher say down and said "Well I'm going to layer in THIS subtext and hidden meaning for people to puzzle and talk about for the next couple centuries" as opposed to the writing technique of the great Bard "Eh I'll throw a fart joke in there, that always gets a laugh..."
Hamlet stands as proof that you are wrong, good sir. And yeah, I think Golding actually did sit down and say something to that effect; I recall reading something about how displeased he was with the then-current reading list of trite, golly-gee-whiz BS (something akin to Swiss Family Robinson) that was being read in English classes at the time.
Are you referring to the Mel Gibson version of Hamlet?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Are you referring to the Mel Gibson version of Hamlet?
I am referring to the script, as written by Shakespeare, and will hear no more mention of that ....that thing with Mel Gibson in it (Which was still far better than the Ethan Hawk version).
Fitzgerald was a man who really really wanted to be the next Earnest Hemingway (exaggeration). He wrote The Great Gatsby hoping it would enshrine him forever in the writing hall of fame, but despite critical praise from his peers the book sold poorly in his life time. After his death however one of his buddies managed to use his political connections to get the book issued to US soldiers in WWII. The book earned its reputation because of its very negative (if sympathetic) portrayal of the rich prior to the depression which people from the depression era could really get behind. Following the war the book ended up becoming basic curriculum in schools during the 50's (with no small help from Fitzgerald's personal friends) and thus the book became forever enshrined in the writing hall of fame more for making rich folks look like douches than for actually being any good.
Kind of like the Gettysburg Battlefield in more than a few ways actually
Clarification: I don't really have anything against Fitzgerald, I just think The Great Gatsby is a book that has been taken far beyond its actual merit. It was enshrined by a small group of men who appreciated it and shoe horned it into American schools demanding everyone else appreciate it as much as they did.
Easy E wrote: Of ourse I will watch it. The title says that it is Great!
You sir are a credit to the American nation
Also, as a Minnesotan I am required to either read/watch F. Scott Fitzgerald or listen/watch to a Prairie Home Companion by Garrison Keeler. If I don't do this annually, they physically have you deported to one of the Dakotas or Wisconisn.
I choose to watch the new version of the Great Gatsby! Don't Deport me St. Paul!
azazel the cat wrote: I am referring to the script, as written by Shakespeare, and will hear no more mention of that ....that thing with Mel Gibson in it (Which was still far better than the Ethan Hawk version).
Dear Lord. Mel Gibson's version was an abomination. It was as if the screenplay was developed by attacking Shakespeare's work with a rusty meat cleaver. If Hawke's version was worse I dread to imagine how bad it could be.
Fitzgerald was a man who really really wanted to be the next Earnest Hemingway (exaggeration). He wrote The Great Gatsby hoping it would enshrine him forever in the writing hall of fame, but despite critical praise from his peers the book sold poorly in his life time. After his death however one of his buddies managed to use his political connections to get the book issued to US soldiers in WWII. The book earned its reputation because of its very negative (if sympathetic) portrayal of the rich prior to the depression which people from the depression era could really get behind. Following the war the book ended up becoming basic curriculum in schools during the 50's (with no small help from Fitzgerald's personal friends) and thus the book became forever enshrined in the writing hall of fame more for making rich folks look like douches than for actually being any good.
Kind of like the Gettysburg Battlefield in more than a few ways actually
Clarification: I don't really have anything against Fitzgerald, I just think The Great Gatsby is a book that has been taken far beyond its actual merit. It was enshrined by a small group of men who appreciated it and shoe horned it into American schools demanding everyone else appreciate it as much as they did.
Aaand you just explained the entire US education system in a nutshell.
Fitzgerald was a man who really really wanted to be the next Earnest Hemingway (exaggeration). He wrote The Great Gatsby hoping it would enshrine him forever in the writing hall of fame, but despite critical praise from his peers the book sold poorly in his life time. After his death however one of his buddies managed to use his political connections to get the book issued to US soldiers in WWII. The book earned its reputation because of its very negative (if sympathetic) portrayal of the rich prior to the depression which people from the depression era could really get behind. Following the war the book ended up becoming basic curriculum in schools during the 50's (with no small help from Fitzgerald's personal friends) and thus the book became forever enshrined in the writing hall of fame more for making rich folks look like douches than for actually being any good.
Kind of like the Gettysburg Battlefield in more than a few ways actually
[citation needed]
That doesn't explain why contemporaries liked it, and recent academics and writers still refer to it. I'm not sure wanting to be popular is much of a critique of any artist; any artist worth a damn thinks people should like their work. Some of it I am aware of, but it also seems like some serious spin, such as Wilson only promoting it because they were friends. It also might have been that he genuinely thought it was a book worth sharing.
Oh I was just explaining some background, not necessarily critiquing the book (not in that post anyway). Like_That and I sort of have this thing about 'historical context'
Like I clarified in my post I think there were people who appreciated the book (hell on a level I can appreciate the book, I just don't like it that much). I like to think that Fitzgerald's friends feld bad he never managed to achieve his dream and hoped that they might be able to help him out after his death by getting his book out there in any way they could. I don't hate them for this (hell I can't even remember any of their names and had completely forgotten Edmund Wilson had a relationship with FSF).
I just don't think the book is very good and that its status in the modern classroom was built upon a generation that could very strongly and easily identify with the work. To those of the newer generation though, we're highly detached from its themes and without that personal attachment, the book is revealed to be what it really is. Dull and dry (imo). EDIT: The book will forever be of importance because of its huge impact throughout the later half the 20th century, but I suspect that's what it will be remembered for in the years to come. It's impact, rather than its worth (though that's kind of splitting hairs I guess).
LordofHats wrote: To those of the newer generation though, we're highly detached from its themes and without that personal attachment, the book is revealed to be what it really is.
In this day and age of "We are the 99%" slogans, do people really feel detached from the Great gatsby's themes?
LordofHats wrote: To those of the newer generation though, we're highly detached from its themes and without that personal attachment, the book is revealed to be what it really is.
In this day and age of "We are the 99%" slogans, do people really feel detached from the Great gatsby's themes?
I did have this thought while typing that post out I think my main issue is that the primary thrust of Gatsby is (in a phrase) "The American Dream is a lie." Americans are getting further and further away from putting any real stock in the American Dream, so a book about how it can go wrong doesn't really sit as powerfully for us as it does for people from the Depression era. Sure we can always get behind rich people are douches, and love is hard, but that isn't really Gatsby's central theme. It's main point isn't one that I think effects Americans quite like it did.
EDIT: Actually the Great Gatsby was used in my history class as a commentary on how the American Dream was a lie, so in high school these days I assume we're all taught this lesson anyway XD
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Every newspaper and magazine from Juno Alaska to John O'Groats in the UK is featuring this film. Dakka cannot be left behind, Dakka cannot be seen to be a cultural wasteland!
Reading the GG is every high school kid's worst nightmare, but here on Dakka we need to ask the hard questions:
Will you be watching it at the cinema?
Is it reflective of the American dream turned sour?
Easy E wrote: Oh, so you are arguing that the Themes of the book seem self-evident now and therefore make it irrelevant?
No, just that its not as potent a message as it once may have been. It harkons to a culture that I think is less powerful today, so it means less to an audience. Likewise, my argument would be that The Great Gatsby became so great because it spoke to a generation of Americans. It told a story that for them was extremely real, so they overlooked what was otherwise a boring and dry novel because it meant a lot to them.
It means less to me, so to me, the book doesn't seem quite so great.
hotsauceman1 wrote: What i have to say about that book for fill a book three times it size. in 4 point font.
I hate that book with a passion, It simbilizes everything that is wrong with high school literature.
Exquisite agreement. Now lets break that down for an entire class to find my deep meaning.
Repulicans and Democrats finally agree on something. Maybe we can use that as a jumping ground for political reform.
Still. I just hated school books, I remember i had to beg to read "War of the worlds" because the copy i had was only 140 pages while the requirement was 250.
WAR OF THE WORLDS!!!!!!!!
Then we didnt get to finish the good books because my teacher didnt like them, like Lord of the flies, or Brave new world.
Why didnt we finish brave new world? Because near the end it mentioned abortion.
Easy E wrote: Oh, so you are arguing that the Themes of the book seem self-evident now and therefore make it irrelevant?
No, just that its not as potent a message as it once may have been. It harkons to a culture that I think is less powerful today, so it means less to an audience. Likewise, my argument would be that The Great Gatsby became so great because it spoke to a generation of Americans. It told a story that for them was extremely real, so they overlooked what was otherwise a boring and dry novel because it meant a lot to them.
It means less to me, so to me, the book doesn't seem quite so great.
Okay. Thanks for taking the time to talk it through.
Also, Fraz you make it sound like snorting Cocaine is a bad thing?
I remember doing The Great Gatsby at school, it was about the same time I was having my wisdom teeth removed. One of these experiences was painful and not something I'd wish on anyone, the other.,. I can think you can guess where I'm going!
hotsauceman1 wrote: What i have to say about that book for fill a book three times it size. in 4 point font.
I hate that book with a passion, It simbilizes everything that is wrong with high school literature.
Exquisite agreement. Now lets break that down for an entire class to find my deep meaning.
Repulicans and Democrats finally agree on something. Maybe we can use that as a jumping ground for political reform.
Still. I just hated school books, I remember i had to beg to read "War of the worlds" because the copy i had was only 140 pages while the requirement was 250.
WAR OF THE WORLDS!!!!!!!!
Then we didnt get to finish the good books because my teacher didnt like them, like Lord of the flies, or Brave new world.
Why didnt we finish brave new world? Because near the end it mentioned abortion.
There is "Understand" and then there is "forcing it down our gullet to think things that are not true"
In HS english you cannot have an Opinion that differs from the teacher, lest you fail
hotsauceman1 wrote: There is "Understand" and then there is "forcing it down our gullet to think things that are not true"
In HS english you cannot have an Opinion that differs from the teacher, lest you fail
That's a problem with the instruction, not the texts.
hotsauceman1 wrote: There is "Understand" and then there is "forcing it down our gullet to think things that are not true"
In HS english you cannot have an Opinion that differs from the teacher, lest you fail
Again, despite your heretical purple bronie avatar, you are correct.
hotsauceman1 wrote:There is "Understand" and then there is "forcing it down our gullet to think things that are not true"
In HS english you cannot have an Opinion that differs from the teacher, lest you fail
hotsauceman1 wrote:There is "Understand" and then there is "forcing it down our gullet to think things that are not true"
In HS english you cannot have an Opinion that differs from the teacher, lest you fail
hotsauceman1 wrote:There is "Understand" and then there is "forcing it down our gullet to think things that are not true"
In HS english you cannot have an Opinion that differs from the teacher, lest you fail
This has not been my experience
You didn't go to an American high school.
I did, publicly schooled all twelve years. I have expererienced what hotsauce is describing, but I have also experienced the opposite. Regarding a piece of classic literature as "nothing more than kindling" simply because you had a teacher that taught it in a way that you didn't like is kind of ridiculous.
hotsauceman1 wrote:There is "Understand" and then there is "forcing it down our gullet to think things that are not true"
In HS english you cannot have an Opinion that differs from the teacher, lest you fail
This has not been my experience
You didn't go to an American high school.
I did, publicly schooled all twelve years. I have expererienced what hotsauce is describing, but I have also experienced the opposite. Regarding a piece of classic literature as "nothing more than kindling" simply because you had a teacher that taught it in a way that you didn't like is kind of ridiculous.
No the teacher just makes the horror show unbearable and unending. They seem to take great joy in hammering certain books, all of which sucked.
My experience in high school was more "Exasperated teachers with eyes that quietly beg for death in the face of a semi illiterate Junior level class." then "Shove my ideals down your throat" that's reserved for college professors and the science department on a HS level in these parts.
Someone mentioned Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter earlier, which is a boring, but mercifully short book. It took us a couple MONTHS to chew through the book because of the mouth breathing leprous retards that populated that course. I assure you that that was the average, not a wild deviation as well. Then again I may have unfair standards. As of the seventh grade my favorite book was The Count of Monte Cristo.
Oh I didn't love the Scarlet Letter, but it was better than Gatsby. That book actually had a *gasp* compelling story. There was a lot of flowery scene setting (which while pretty I don't enjoy) but you could skim over all of the flowery prose and just read the meat of the story pretty easily and it was a meaty story.
hotsauceman1 wrote: There is "Understand" and then there is "forcing it down our gullet to think things that are not true"
In HS english you cannot have an Opinion that differs from the teacher, lest you fail
Again, despite your heretical purple bronie avatar, you are correct.
There are aspects of these posts that make me question the quality of a certain poster's education on the subject of English.
Well, In nearly ALL of my english teachers where hacks from HS Freshmen: Because of being placed in special education I was in a class that was above my Level, therefor i didnt work
Soph: out of special ed,, ut thrown in with a teacher who gave us a jo to re-write Shakespeare plays to our fancy(I made Macbeth into a sci-fi action thriller, I failed)
Junior: Teacher never let us finish a book.
Senior: Because the program i was in got new cameras and editing software for the comps the first quarter of english was nothing but making movie based on the Jungle book for the first quarter. Then the teacher left and we had a string of Subs.
And that is why i hate english,
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well, In nearly ALL of my english teachers where hacks from HS Freshmen: Because of being placed in special education I was in a class that was above my Level, therefor i didnt work
Soph: out of special ed,, ut thrown in with a teacher who gave us a jo to re-write Shakespeare plays to our fancy(I made Macbeth into a sci-fi action thriller, I failed)
Junior: Teacher never let us finish a book.
Senior: Because the program i was in got new cameras and editing software for the comps the first quarter of english was nothing but making movie based on the Jungle book for the first quarter. Then the teacher left and we had a string of Subs.
And that is why i hate english,
Hate the system, not the literature. If you can recognize that it was poor instruction, not poor texts, there's really no reason not to go back and re-read them. That goes for all of you heathens!
I hate the literature to.
The Great Gatsby was OVER the top with its metaphors. The eyes of god being overly used and was just stupid.
If it was written today, it would be a wirerack dimestore novel
hotsauceman1 wrote: I hate the literature to.
The Great Gatsby was OVER the top with its metaphors. The eyes of god being overly used and was just stupid.
If it was written today, it would be a wirerack dimestore novel
The eyes of God are disappointed with you. Feel the eyes of God bore into you from above, shining with disappointment, and feel ashamed.
I never had to read The Great Gatsby, but I did have to read Lord of the Flies.
hotsauceman1 wrote: There is "Understand" and then there is "forcing it down our gullet to think things that are not true"
In HS english you cannot have an Opinion that differs from the teacher, lest you fail
Again, despite your heretical purple bronie avatar, you are correct.
There are aspects of these posts that make me question the quality of a certain poster's education on the subject of English.
I'm actually a pretty big Hawthorne fan, though.
Bring it baby.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: I hate the literature to.
The Great Gatsby was OVER the top with its metaphors. The eyes of god being overly used and was just stupid.
If it was written today, it would be a wirerack dimestore novel
Okay, y'all are gonna kill me for this, but I liked the Great Gatsby. Yes, I'm not ashamed to admit it, I liked it. I've even read it 3 times because I liked it so much. I don't care what anyone says, Fitzgerald was amazing at his descriptions of people and places - the first party scene in the book frankly is one of my favorite sequences in a novel. It just pops right out of the page and into your mind. Fitzgerald was great at crafting sentences that carried weight. The closing sentence of The Great Gatsby is one of the best I have ever read, and I've read a lot, everything from Faulkner to Hemingway, Solzhenitsyn., Vonnegut, Hawthorne, Dostoyevsky, Updike, and others, and I still find myself entranced by Fitzgerald's way with words. The character of Gatsby, while not the most original, is one of the most memorable characters I've ever encountered. Fitzgerald manages to build a believable and strong undercurrent of self-doubt and worry into Gatsby's otherwise bluff and easy-going personality that makes him relatable, even to me, a kid from the mid-West that's never had much money.
Also, I think the whole "eye of God" thing is blown waaay out of proportion by teachers. Actually, that's one of the problems of highschool English; it really overemphasizes metaphor/presents them in such a way that a student cannot draw their own conclusions, not matter how much thought goes into that conclusion. It's a big problem. So much of the enjoyment of reading comes from the readers own interpretations of the content of the book that, frankly, it's no wonder that some many students are disgruntled by the "present everything as fact" method of teaching English.
Anyways, I'm just sitting here waiting for the lynch mob.
Personally I've always found teachers who try and read deeper meaning into literature where there really isn't any not very good teachers.
I like literature classes (my favorites were in collage) where its as much a history class as a english class where you get to learn about what was going on in the authors life and the world at large and how some of the influences made it into the book.
Like finding out that this particualr sci-fi and fantasy author whom everyone thought was a bloke was actually a woman who may or may not have been bisexual but who's mother had once come unto her. And then you read a bit more of the book/short stories with a different perspective.
hotsauceman1 wrote: There is "Understand" and then there is "forcing it down our gullet to think things that are not true"
In HS english you cannot have an Opinion that differs from the teacher, lest you fail
Again, despite your heretical purple bronie avatar, you are correct.
There are aspects of these posts that make me question the quality of a certain poster's education on the subject of English.
My sister had to read 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and A Brave New World through the course of her English classes over the last two years. My High School many moons ago actually offered a semester long scifi course as an English elective.
rubiksnoob wrote: Sigh. It's sad how little regard people have for literature, simply because they don't want to take the effort to actually understand it.
It's a stupid book that couldn't be more heavy handed if it tried to beat it's message into your head with a sledgehammer. It's prose is appallingly boring, it's characters flatter than Mr.Game & Watch, it's plot is trite, and it's message could be delivered in a single paragraph rather than a several hundred page snooze fest.
Jules Vern and H.G Welles would be far better authors for high school age kids.
Never read it to be honest, but i'm being forced into watching the film as it's the wife's choice for our next cinema trip. Never should have agreed to take turns in choosing the films.......
It seems that there are a lot of American posters here who had a traumatic time with the GG in high school. This thread has opened up some old wounds. From the bottom of my heart, I apologise
rubiksnoob wrote: Sigh. It's sad how little regard people have for literature, simply because they don't want to take the effort to actually understand it.
Oh, I understand it well enough, I just didn't enjoy it.
Considering the subject matter of GG, it doesn't even sound like the kind of book that would have any meaning to a highschool student. Granted, I haven't read it, so I obviously can't say anything concretely, but from what it sounds like, the entire idea of making it a book for highschool reading is an awful one. It sounds like something that would resonate much more with young adult audiences who actually have to come to terms with the social order of things. Not some student who doesn't have to worry about things like class at all.
A great may be a great, but greats still appeal to demographics. Reading and critical thinking shouldn't be considered a chore, and a lot of the reason for the way that it's considered to be that is because books that are obviously not meant for high school students are forced upon high school students.
Like finding out that this particualr sci-fi and fantasy author whom everyone thought was a bloke was actually a woman who may or may not have been bisexual but who's mother had once come unto her. And then you read a bit more of the book/short stories with a different perspective.
I was always angry we didn't do more poetry in my English classes. It was all about novels (or sections of). There's more literature out there and short stories (imo) are much more suited to a high school level literature/english class than reading the same 4 novels I read last year in the previous level of the course.
Instead of reading a bunch of novels I'd prefer if I'd been taught on a single novel and a collection of short stories and poems. It would have been way funner and simpler to manage as a student.
Easy E wrote: I'm still pissed that in HS English they didn't let me read Batman: Year One or Charlotte's Web!
As a positive for English teachers:
1. My 6th grade teacher let me include the manual for Panzer Blitz as books for a competition on number of books read. If you're not familiar this is like permitting the FOW manual as a replacement book.
2. Another teacher took ten minutes talking about a gang fight, then showed us West Side Story and then revealed it was actually Shakespeare. He also showed Ran after we read King Lear.
3. One of my Boy's English teachers officially added Ender's Game to the reading list options after The Boy did a synopsis of it, and most of the boys jumped on that instead of the usual dreck.
With the exception of Great Expectations, and GG (Both had Great interestingly) I enjoyed the books and plays we did. But I was a nut for Shakespeare.
Every year older you get, the better GG gets. If you read it in high school PLEASE read it again. It's one of the best books ever written, but schools consistently make kids read it too young, when it's not really "for" them yet.
Rented Tritium wrote: Every year older you get, the better GG gets. If you read it in high school PLEASE read it again. It's one of the best books ever written, but schools consistently make kids read it too young, when it's not really "for" them yet.
I never read it in school, but many of the books that I did read during my education I bought and re-read later in life because I enjoyed them first time around in school;
To Kill A Mockingbird
Hamlet
MacBeth
King Lear
Snow Falling on Cedars
Of Mice & Men
Canterbury Tales
I can also chime in and say that my own experience of English teachers was overwhelmingly positive. They had no problem with a difference of interpretation, so long as you could provide evidence to substantiate it.
Like finding out that this particualr sci-fi and fantasy author whom everyone thought was a bloke was actually a woman who may or may not have been bisexual but who's mother had once come unto her. And then you read a bit more of the book/short stories with a different perspective.
Er...who was that?
Alice Bradley Sheldon, her pen name was James Tiptree, Jr.
Rented Tritium wrote: Every year older you get, the better GG gets. If you read it in high school PLEASE read it again. It's one of the best books ever written, but schools consistently make kids read it too young, when it's not really "for" them yet.
I never read it in school, but many of the books that I did read during my education I bought and re-read later in life because I enjoyed them first time around in school;
Canterbury Tales
I can also chime in and say that my own experience of English teachers was overwhelmingly positive. They had no problem with a difference of interpretation, so long as you could provide evidence to substantiate it.
Whoa, who the Hell reads Canterbury Tales in high school? It's written in Middle English!
Canterbury Tales is awesome. And there are rewrites that put it into modern English you know
One of my classes did let us read Beowulf in the original writing. Its shocking that just looking at it, it makes no sense, but then you just sound the words out and you can understand it!
Rented Tritium wrote: Every year older you get, the better GG gets. If you read it in high school PLEASE read it again. It's one of the best books ever written, but schools consistently make kids read it too young, when it's not really "for" them yet.
I never read it in school, but many of the books that I did read during my education I bought and re-read later in life because I enjoyed them first time around in school;
To Kill A Mockingbird
Hamlet
MacBeth
King Lear
Snow Falling on Cedars
Of Mice & Men
Canterbury Tales
I can also chime in and say that my own experience of English teachers was overwhelmingly positive. They had no problem with a difference of interpretation, so long as you could provide evidence to substantiate it.
It was 50/50 for me. Half of my english teachers were excellent and the other half were awful. GG was taught by a good teacher, though, I was just not ready for it yet.
I suppose I was fortunate to have good English teachers in middle school and high school.
Some of my favorite books included The Yearling, The Canterbury Tales, Where the Red Fern Grows, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Of Mice and Men, Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, A Wrinkle in Time, and some others I'm probably forgetting.
azazel the cat wrote: Whoa, who the Hell reads Canterbury Tales in high school? It's written in Middle English!
We did. We read the prologue in 4th or 5th year (roughly 15-16), and we read the Wife's Tale at A-Level (17-18). It was fun trying to scribble a translation between the lines
LordofHats wrote:Canterbury Tales is awesome. And there are rewrites that put it into modern English you know
One of my classes did let us read Beowulf in the original writing. Its shocking that just looking at it, it makes no sense, but then you just sound the words out and you can understand it!
Beowulf was an oral tale originally; I have absolutely no idea what the original written version is.
A translation of Canterbury tales seems strange to me, just because it kills rhyme scheme and the metre of it.
I recall the only book I had to read in english lit classes in high school which I despised and found little to no value under its surface was Jane Eyre. To this day I think that book is best used to level desks and tables.
I've said it before, and it bears repeating: I have absolutely no idea why East of Eden is not mandatory reading in english classes in American high schools. I think it may be my pick for the best novel written in the 20th century (Sorry, Joyce, but I do not care for stream-of-consiousness; though you are far, far better than Proust.). On that note, why isn't Ulysses mandatory as well? Is it because Joyce wasn't American?
Beowulf was an oral tale originally; I have absolutely no idea what the original written version is.
I mean I got a copy written down in its original language (which I guess is what, old english?). Like This. Twas a fun day when we did that. EDIT: Knid of lkie taht day wehre you do tihs for the frsit tmie and ralezie you can slitl raed it. Fun stuff
I recall the only book I had to read in english lit classes in high school which I despised and found little to no value under its surface was Jane Eyre. To this day I think that book is best used to level desks and tables.
Did not read the book but I watched the movie... It wasn't very good.
Easy E wrote: I'm still pissed that in HS English they didn't let me read Batman: Year One or Charlotte's Web!
As a positive for English teachers:
1. My 6th grade teacher let me include the manual for Panzer Blitz as books for a competition on number of books read. If you're not familiar this is like permitting the FOW manual as a replacement book.
2. Another teacher took ten minutes talking about a gang fight, then showed us West Side Story and then revealed it was actually Shakespeare. He also showed Ran after we read King Lear.
3. One of my Boy's English teachers officially added Ender's Game to the reading list options after The Boy did a synopsis of it, and most of the boys jumped on that instead of the usual dreck.
With the exception of Great Expectations, and GG (Both had Great interestingly) I enjoyed the books and plays we did. But I was a nut for Shakespeare.
I rememebr writing a compare and contrast paper on X-wings vs. Tie Interceptors. I had used various source material from the old West End Star Wars RPG, Star Wars Technical Guides, and I think novelizations of the films. Good times.
I had that English teacher wrapped around my finger that semester.
From what I hear the movie is a bland spectacle film but that Leo D is pretty awesome (which I can see). If you asked me which actors would be good for playing Jay Gatsby I'd probably pick Johnny Depp, Leonardo Decaprio, and Robert Downy Junior.
I rememebr writing a compare and contrast paper on X-wings vs. Tie Interceptors. I had used various source material from the old West End Star Wars RPG, Star Wars Technical Guides, and I think novelizations of the films. Good times.
I had that English teacher wrapped around my finger that semester.
You've got that backwards. That teacher knew exactly what they were doing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: From what I hear the movie is a bland spectacle film but that Leo D is pretty awesome (which I can see). If you asked me which actors would be good for playing Jay Gatsby I'd probably pick Johnny Depp, Leonardo Decaprio, and Robert Downy Junior.
A bland spectacle?
It's almost like that's the entire point of the book.
What? The scathing critique of jazz age excess contains hollow spectacle? You don't say.
Critics in the UK have savaged the Great Gatsby. Judging by some reviews, you'd be forgiven for thinking Tom Cruise had been cast as Gatsby....hmm not a bad idea
I really enjoyed the film, I haven't read the book but I imagine that a fair bit of character interaction has been left out to try and squeeze it into one film. I didn't connect to the characters but I felt that it was entertaining to watch. Leonardo DiCaprio really brought the film to life. I wasn't sold on some of the Modern music (Jay Z, Alicia Keys), but some of it fitted well (Lana Del Ray/Winehouse). Absolutely loved the visual style of the film, the outfits were dapper as feth.
I'd recommend this movie for a rainy afternoon, or if nothing better is on. It's not a classic film, but it's definitely enjoyable.
Ignore the naysayers who cling to their adolescent bitterness; it's a fantastic piece of literature. It's a quick read, too. Only a little bit over 100 pages, if I recall correctly.
Now lets break that down for an entire class to find my deep meaning. 
I kid, I kid.
