svnh's Reviews > The Great Gatsby

I finished reading The Great Gatsby about an hour ago and deliberately got online to find reviews that make me feel better about not liking it. I'm more than happy to say to each their own but I really don't get why people are raving about this book and figure I must have missed something. An earlier poster said that the plot had fallen out of her copy. Well maybe if we combined copies we might have a story. There was a tiny bit of plot in mine but the characters were entirely missing. The blurb sold this book as a love story and it took me a while to catch on to the fact that it was supposed to be about Gatsby and what's her name (an hour, and she's already gone from my memory!). Nick (was he supposed to be a character or just the narrator?) was completely useless. I was waiting for him to fall in love until I realised that the golfer he was going round with was his partner in the story.

Ok, so this was supposed to be more about materialism rather than who was doing who, but for me, the materialism didn't really stand out as there was nothing to compare it to. All I read was a bunch of people wanted to sleep with people that they weren't married to and it only got interesting when people started to die...

i had to say something im glad this is a polarizing book but dang a lizard brain reference really? jim morrison sucked as a poet and a person so did fitzgerald. so did wilde. hell so did socrates. well as people. anyway... i loved this book. decadence and glam. loved it in eighth grade loved it in high school loved it in college. dont know about you but cookie cutter plots are boring and desires for ones are a desire to stay conformed. i continue to shudder at having a lit degree how worthless it feels now. gawd wheres all the lights. litterary vomit this feels ego stroking masterbation warrent warrent lit degree lizzard brain and maturity to find here questioning morality of the author to find the pleasure in this book im choking on maturitys gravy spoon

Are u kidding me. This story is the American dream. One of the greatest books I've ever read. It is not only romantic but haunting to the core of my soul, for we well go to the ends of the earth for what we love.

I agree with you, well, I didn't hate it, but I certainly didn't love it either! Got a bit bored towards the middle wondering if anything was actually going to happen, but all-in-all an OK read, just not the masterpiece I was expecting!

The book was trash. Every 'great' american novel ends with a murder? Or is that just me?

Well said. I could not care less about the characters in this novel. I just tried reading this for the 2nd time. (The first time was in high school and assumed maybe I wasn't mature enough to get it.) Now that I am quite sure I do get it, The Great Gatsby still falls far short of great for me.

to the original author: I agree and I also do not like it. I had the misfortune to read this book right after I'd just read Lolita by Nabokov and one of the reasons I picked it up was its supposed 'beautiful prose' (something other reviewers on here have also mentioned) but i did not find anything in the prose which was a patch on what i'd just read from Nabokov and so I was highly disappointed and the central plot was trite and done to death.

Why is this a great novel again? Probably because it was published when it was and written by a WASP.

i've been trying to finish this book since the past 3 months. it's so boring!!

The only thing I find remarkable about this review is how much the reviewer thinks we care about her opinion or that it is particularly original. I mean, I am shocked, SHOCKED! that an English major would attack a classic piece of literature.

seth i really like your interpretation of the book. im only on chapter two, and im really loving it so far. told my friend i was reading it and his distaste made me curious if others felt the same. i wouldve continued reading regardless, but your stance on this has made me go into the book at a different angle. thank you.

You should watch: http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_ur...
I found it really great after I read the book, (which, admittedly, unlike you, I kind enjoyed) and maybe it will help the book grow on you to see someone who's so enthusiastic about it talk about it.

Seth wrote: "I think your post is getting responses because it is provocative. For me, it was the first one that came up on my search. I just finished the Great Gatsby. Reading through your original thoughts, i..."

Best reply so far. Thanks, dear.

You have your right for having a bad taste. Bye

i am going to re-read it. maybe i missed something the first time round.

TBH the novel is just higly overrated. I think this is what piss off a lot of people. But that does not make it a complete trash neither deservers one star out of five.

I am reading the book now, and I am still waiting for it to get interesting. I must say, so far I don't see what all the hype has been about all these years. I, at this point, agree with you completely.

whats great about this book are the remarkable quotes from the author made trought the character of nick. In the end of the book is a pretty good twist and a sacrafice that Gatsby is doing for Daisy. Overall the novel represents a post war era.

You may be right about people commenting on what you say not backing up their remarks but you do so yourself by claiming that the prose is tedious. Well tedious is a surprising word for me to find in connection with Scott Fitzgerald's writing and you do not say where or in what respect his writing is tedious.- The book seems to me to be easy to read and anything but tedious. Several people including you have hinted at the fact that this is not a book for young people. Absolutely not. I am sympathetic with anyone criticising its use for a safe syllabus book. When I first read it, I was not greatly taken with it. I felt differently about it reading it 40 years later. One of the main arguments of the book is that you should not try to go backl to recreate a lost love. This book strikes me as a fair and deeply human book and much kinder to the charcaters in the book than some commentators are about the narrator. I think that the writer's reputation might suffer from the very close association with the so-called "jazz age". There is a lot of humanity and human wisdom beyond and behind that. Finally, I think any literature which is not contemporary requires what Coleridge called "the willing suspension of disbelief" whether it be disbelief in God, mores, manners, life style or anything else. To a certain extent we have to join a writer's society to appreciate her or him. Otherwise, we are likely to judge as sociologists or anthropologists judge. I dont know if that makes any sense?

Good for you! Don't be a lemming who likes something just because she's told to! I also dislike this book. It's INCREDIBLY overrated. :)

I have to agree. It was rather boring. I think people are band-wagoned into pretending to like it and when someone posts and unpopular opinion everyone's first instinct is to attack. Heaven forbid anyone have their own opinion.

If you are going to claim that a much acclaimed writer is "INCREDIBLY overrated", your very strong language requires explanation and justification. In what way is "The Great Gatsby" "overrated", so "overrated" according to you, that is beggars belief? After all, your comment is effectively saying that a great many people (who admire this work very much) are "incredibly", to use your word, obtuse?

Heather wrote: "Good for you! Don't be a lemming who likes something just because she's told to! I also dislike this book. It's INCREDIBLY overrated. :)"

Esdaile wrote: "You may be right about people commenting on what you say not backing up their remarks but you do so yourself by claiming that the prose is tedious. Well tedious is a surprising word for me to find ..."

Heather wrote: "Good for you! Don't be a lemming who likes something just because she's told to! I also dislike this book. It's INCREDIBLY overrated. :)"

Indeed everyone has heard of the fashionable novel or other work of art which the ignorant praise just because everyone else does, who follow the crowd out of a fear of being different or out of fashion and do not understand at all what they regard as "great" or belonging to a famous school or canon. Equally, however, many peremtorily dismiss or abuse a work of art only because they do not understand it and conceal their ignorance or laziness in a smokescreen of abuse, on the principle that "attack is the best form of defence".

You want us to point to an article that explains why it's good? Oh my... Perhaps if that's how you're measuring books, there is no hope here.

I feel the same way about this. I didn't like it. Even Nick's character wasn't that relatable. And sometimes I wonder whether Nick fell in love with Gatsby. At least that would have been an interesting twist!

Ralph wrote: "I feel the same way about this. I didn't like it. Even Nick's character wasn't that relatable. And sometimes I wonder whether Nick fell in love with Gatsby. At least that would have been an interes..."

I would say "especially" Nick's character wasn't that relatable, not "even". The self-effacing and nondescript narrator is in a long tradition. Zeitbloom in Thomas Mann's "Dr Faustus", Charles Ryder in "Brideshead Revisited", the narrator (do we even get to learn his name?) in "À la recherche du temps perdu", Darley in "The Alexandra Quartet", whatshis name in "Dance to the Musci of Time" and I am sure many more.

Morris wrote: "You want us to point to an article that explains why it's good? Oh my... Perhaps if that's how you're measuring books, there is no hope here."

I did include that you might write this article for me.. don't get offended by the word "article." I'm not looking to academia to save The Great Gatsby (I wouldn't have written a goodreads review twice if I were), and peer-reviewed journals certainly aren't my singular gauge for good books. However, well-written and concise arguments for the legitimacy of the novel, rather than attacks on my personal taste and integrity, are certainly a better tool for persuading me. I've seen at least one good reading in this thread already--my request has already been gratified.

There may yet be no hope for me with Gatsby, but I assure you, requesting that someone show me something new does not make me hopeless as a lover of literature.

Also, while some posts have been far more useful than others, congratulations on keeping this thread going for 4.5 years, goodreaders.

I don't hate that you hated it. The world is filled with both sides of the coin. It is one of my favorite books. Not only because I enjoyed what was written down but just because what it represents for me. It my mind it represents literal perfection. Maybe one day you can see it from that perspective but if not it doesn't make you a bad person. Everyone's opinion is different and the rest of the world will just have to accept that.

the great thing about ""classic literature" is that if you dont like it, it makes it that much easier for people to condescend you, a few dont even seem aware that their doing it. dont allow yourself to be patronized, in my opinon the only redeeming quality of this book is that if you say you liked it, people think your more conceited, personally I dont choose books on the basis of wanting to change peoples opinion of me. In my opinion this book isn't worth the heat generated by burning it.

Kevin wrote: "the great thing about ""classic literature" is that if you dont like it, it makes it that much easier for people to condescend you, a few dont even seem aware that their doing it. dont allow yourse..."

Instead of being vulgar, why do you not give your reasons for finding the book overrated?

'pee' is hardly vulgarity but if its that offensive to you let it be stricken from the record, I was only defending the right for everyone to be judged fairly, which I like. Still, like I said I don't care what you think of my opinion on this, its not a basis for judgment, I only like ranting about books I like.

Kevin wrote: "'pee' is hardly vulgarity but if its that offensive to you let it be stricken from the record, I was only defending the right for everyone to be judged fairly, which I like. Still, like I said I do..."

"I was only defending the right for everyone to be judged fairly, which I like"-however hard I try, I do not understand what that sentence means. It irks me when people claim some kind of "human right" to condemn or praise anything and everything as they see fit, whether they have any ability to judge and quite regardless of whether they can support their judgements or not. I do not see the point of people just saying "loved it" "hated it" "loved it" "it was ok" with no reason and no claim to knowledge or experience of any aspect of the art concerned. Just saying "ok" or "good" or "rubbish" is of no help or interest to anyone else. It does not interest me if someone claims that a work of art admired by thousands or hundreds of thousands displeases them, it would interest me if they can peruasively explain to me why it does so. What you say about people condescending to others for not liking a work of classic literature may be true sometimes but it is much more usual in my opinion for someone who condemns a classic piece of literature as "rubbish" to be regarded as "original" and "interesting" for having such a "daring" and "unorthodox" and "honest" and "authentic" point of view.

I so agree with your original review. I could not have said it better myself.

Ioanna wrote: "I so agree with your original review. I could not have said it better myself."

Brett wrote: "The only thing I find remarkable about this review is how much the reviewer thinks we care about her opinion or that it is particularly original. I mean, I am shocked, SHOCKED! that an English maj..."

Someone says of the original review, "I could not have said it better myself". No offence intended, but I hope this is meant ironically. If not, the person cannot have a high opinion of his/her own writing abilities.

I happen to like Gatsby. I am currently teaching it to my 11th graders. I feel for you. I am often chastised for my hatred of To Kill A Mockingbird. How could an English teacher HATE To Kill A Mockingbird?? I do.

Esdaile wrote: "It does not interest me if someone claims that a work of art admired by thousands or hundreds of thousands displeases them"

If that is true then why is it -I wonder to myself- that you can't help but retaliate in defense of fiction? Also, humans do have a right "to condemn or praise anything and everything"-as you put it- it is called an opinion, and it is not your place to say weather or not anyone has the ability to make that judgment for themselves. You are proving my point by going out of your way to patronize anybody on this thread who disagrees with you. Nobody here needs to justify themselves to you to post a comment.

Any english dictionary will give 2 main definitions for the word "comment", The American Heritage Dictionary © 1994 defines a comment as follows: noun 1. An explaination, illustration, or criticism 2. A Brief statement of fact or opinion

My point being that "I hated it" fits the definition of a comment, so you anger is invalid and your hostility makes me honestly torn between detached amusement, and melancholy. Look how much negativity the book you love so much brings out of you! you are going to give yourself an aneurism stressing out about something that really shouldn't concern you.

Kevin wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "It does not interest me if someone claims that a work of art admired by thousands or hundreds of thousands displeases them"

If that is true then why is it -I wonder to myself- that..."

I think there is more anger on your side than mine. I disagree that condemning or praising something is an opinion. That is what I criticise about our age-everybody thinking that by just crying "rubbish" or "great" they are really expressing an opinion. I would just say it is an emotional reaction or an outburst. If a dog snarls at someone or something, that is not an opinion, it is a reaction, ditto when it wags its tail. I don't think I have patronised anyone. "Nobody has to justify themselves to you to post a comment." No, but what about everyone else? My question remains: what is the point of just posting a comment such as "I thought that was rubbish"? It does not help anyone in Goodreads to understand the writing in question and it is not interesting or enlightening to discover that someone finds a book "great" or "rubbish" when that someone provides no reasons other than subjective ones, for doing so. If that is all a person can say, they should keep their reactions to themselves.
I do not especially "love" this book, there are many many books for which the word "love" would be more appropriate for me, but I repeat I am irked when people think they have the right just to fire off about without much thinking and in the case of the review express themselves in a manner which boarders on illiterate. But what the heck, it makes me sad more than anything else and a little angry, true, but the anger hostility and stress are more on your side than mine.
Back to your main question, a perfectly valid one-why does it interest me to the extent that I retaliate when people make peremtory and ill-considered and dismissive remarks about works of art admired and enjoyed by millions? The answer is because I am hostile, and I happily admit to being so, to the popular view that every Tom, Dick and Harry should be as respected in their emotional ill considered knee-jerk reaction to something as much as somebody who knows what he or she is talking about because of maybe years of experience and practice and who provides a well balanced judgement.

Esdaile wrote:it makes me sad more than anything else and a little angry, true, but the anger hostility and stress are more on your side than mine.
.

*overlooking redundancies* Quite the opposite actually, I am really just fascinated by where you are comming from psychologically, and yes I understand the point you are making. But I have to disagree with your dictionary again, if I read this book and cried because it was so awful (I did), that is a reaction - however if I tell you it was torture to read it, that is just my opinion.
-But again to reiterate, the box you type in does not say 'detailed opinion/full synopsis', it says comment, and a comment is brief by definition.-
But just for the sake of friendly arguement well will use your definition of opinion vs. reaction, still you are no better than anyone else here, you post knee-jerk reactions too... Only it is far less charming when you do it because while they might have poor reactions to the book, you have poor reactions to poor reactions (seems silly to me) which shouldn't effect your life in the slightest. By doing this you are not elevating yourself above us intellectually or in any other sense, if anything you're stooping to our level (the level of unjustified criticism). Life up there in your ivory tower would be alot less stressful if you just accept the fact that the rest of us are too stupid to relate and stop trying to condescend people who don't care about you.
You compare people unfavorably to dogs and imply they are illiterate and you don't think your patronizing at all? That is a laugh, you dont strike me as stupid so it must be a joke. I am the type of person who can appreciate the significance of differentiating between 'Anger' and 'Hostility', but to do so now would be moot, because neither is neccissary here. You are right in saying that for anyone looking for a new book to read "I hated it" tells them nothing, but there are enough comments and reviews that they dont have to base a decision off of what any one person thought, and you have already read it so I fail to see why you are so emotionally invested in this, let it go, move on with your life, go get some fresh air. In conclusion Gatsby sucks, and you can't change people by being overbearing, unrelenting and mostly just a rude old man, Deal with it.

Esdaile wrote: "Ioanna wrote: "I so agree with your original review. I could not have said it better myself."
...
Someone says of the original review, "I could not have said it better myself". No offence intended, but I hope this is meant ironically. If not, the person cannot have a high opinion of his/her own writing abilities."


I was quite certain that everyone would understand that I do not mean it ironically. I believe the particular sentence can be used as a figure of speech, only to mean that one really agrees with someone else's opinion. I have written my own short review on the book but reading the particular review I felt like commenting to say that I agree.

For the sake of argument, however, what if I did not have a high opinion of my writing abilities (and trust me I do although I am not a native English speaker)? I do not understand why you would comment on something like this. Browsing through all comments I realised you have a comment on almost anything anyone says, particularly when they express a dislike of the book. My dear, not all goodreads users are language experts or literature teachers, not even native English speakers. I am not required to be any of the above in order to express any opinion and I am definitely not obliged to justify my opinion in a manner that would attempt to persuade a literature expert to agree with me. I am absolutely certain that an expert is capable of justifying why "The Great Gatsby" is great but this will never change the fact that I, among others, do not share their enthusiasm. And I have the right to say so.

Someone is wrong in the inrenet. Lol

Ioanna wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Ioanna wrote: "I so agree with your original review. I could not have said it better myself."
...
Someone says of the original review, "I could not have said it better myself". No o..."

Writing a comment on "almost everything anyone says" is a little exaggerated, I have made a few comments here and there. "Comment" invites people to comment, so there should be no surprise if they do in fact comment. You describe the original reaction or whatever it was as a "review" and I took it from there. As a review the original opinion is hardly literate. The point about "rights" and "likes" and "dislikes" is that they are unhelpful to everyone else if they are not explained. If someone reacts negatively to a novel which has been admired and enjoyed by a great many people, it is not unreasonable to expect them either to be able to give cogent reasons or alternbatively for them to say that theirs was a personal reaction which they cannot explain. That would be honest. You write, "I am definitely not obliged to justify my opinion in a manner that would attempt to persuade a literature expert to agree with me"-who is the literary expert here? In answer to the point, you are not "obliged" to do so in the sense that nobody can compel you to of course, yet as a matter of fact I do think there is a certain ethical obligation to do so. If you are going to shoot down popular works of art, then yes I do think there is an obligation to give a reason. Also, why is it that people who criticise any work of art always assume the fault lies with the artist and not with them? Has it even occurred to you that your not enjoying The Great Gatsby might conceivably be the result of shortcomings you might have and not be a shortcoming of the book? Why express any opinion if you cannot back it up? You can claim your "right" to say to the entire world that you don't enjoy "The Great Gatsby" or any other book, but whom will that interest if you cannot offer intelligent reasons?

Esdaile wrote: "Has it even occurred to you that your not enjoying The Great Gatsby might conceivably be the result of shortcomings you might have and not be a shortcoming of the book"

William Shakespeare wrote: "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man know himself to be a fool."

Dan Millman wrote: "My ignorance is based on understanding. Your understanding is based on ignorance. This is why I am a Humorous fool, and you are a serious jackass."

Socrates wrote: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

So your angle is that anybody who doesn't like this book is not only wrong, but stupid? Fine then so be it, I -along with some of the greatest minds in literature and philosophy, it would seem- am a fool, and wear the mantle with pride. Far better to be that than to be bitter and jaded. Still you really are a one trick pony. Now that I think of it though maybe there is a correlation, all the greatest artists are usually mentally traumatised, and drunks (Stephen King wrote: "shot your wife, good F*ing deal, huh?"). Maybe you only like it because of your shortcomings.... because clearly Gatsby sucks.

Yes Kevin, Gatsby gets a little beyond Harry Potter and Steven King and thats why it's difficult to comprehend....

Kevin wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Has it even occurred to you that your not enjoying The Great Gatsby might conceivably be the result of shortcomings you might have and not be a shortcoming of the book"

William Sha..."

I nowhere even implied that anybody who doesn't like this book is ipso facto wrong and or stupid. What I actually wrote was, "Has it even occurred to you that your not enjoying The Great Gatsby might conceivably be the result of shortcomings you might have.." You say that "clearly Gatsby sucks". What an arrogant statement to make! It is not "clear" to me and not "clear" to thousands of other people. I briefly explained in my review why I liked the book; can you briefly explain the reasons for your aversion and what makes you dismiss this famous novel (without even the privoso "I think" ) with the words, "clearly Gatsby sucks".
Not just "Gatsby sucks" but "clearly" Gatsy sucks, which means presumably that if someone cannot see how the book "sucks" said person cannot see the obvious.

Esdaile wrote: "Not just "Gatsby sucks" but "clearly" Gatsy sucks, which means presumably that if someone cannot see how the book "sucks" said person cannot see the obvious"

I agree, clearly Nick sucks too.
As if you didn't know I said that just to 'irk' you
If you can be hostile I can be arrogant.
It might not be clear to you, but it is clear to me and if this websites statistics hold out on a world scale, there are thousands of people who agree with both of us. Therefore I feel this discussion is as endless as it is ridiculous, good thing it's amusing.

While I'm sure that you are not, you honestly seemed interested in my opinion that time, So I will grace you with the short and sweet version - though it will ruin my fun - (More arrogance, I know). It feels redundant to say it as everyone else has already- but these characters were all very 2 dimensional, their motives and personalities so contrived. The text is well planned -yes- but the people were a hodgepodge crammed in to make it work. A good story starts with plot -which The Great Gatsby has in spades- but if you can't follow it up with believable, relatable characters, I'm not emotionally involved in the story...so whats the point? Taking into account that this is a narrative, I can see the usefulness of that to a point, Nick Narrates and if he doesn't understand tom it is probably essential that I don't either. But how can I care about a main character who comes off so inhuman? it makes me suspicious, like nobody else makes sense because Nick is too much a sociopath to understand them. Im reminded specifially of the scene where nick finds himself cleaning the shaving cream off an unconscious man at a party, if that doesn't scream serial killer I don't know what does, had it been lotion instead the parallels to The Silence of the Lambs would be undeniable. No, In my opinion there is only one main character who can be totally unrelateable and still sell the story: Robert Neville in Richard Matheson's "I am Legend". Now if somebody wrote a fanfic in which nick had been isolated from all humanity for about a decade or two and everyone he knew and loved was dead? Point me to it because that might be worth the read.

Razael wrote: "Yes Kevin, Gatsby gets a little beyond Harry Potter and Steven King and thats why it's difficult to comprehend...."

There are lots of books (many I have read) which go beyond the scope of Tommyknockers, but Tommyknockers has characters with believable motivations not paper dolls like Nick. Are you also saying it goes beyond Shakespeare and Socrates? Don't you condescend to me. My issue with the book is not a matter of my comprehension, and my simplistically stated view was only crafted to get a rise out of one person, it warms my black little heart to see it offended atleast two, score another one for the devil's advocate. Furthermore, Stephen king is a renowned and respected author, and you bit back on the one quote I threw in just for amusement. I don't even know where Harry Potter was brought into this, nor have I ever claimed superiority by either author over F. Scott Fitzgerald, I only said I dislike this book... you are the worst troll ever, try harder to make me feel bad next time.

Esdaile wrote: "Ioanna wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Ioanna wrote: "I so agree with your original review. I could not have said it better myself."
...
Someone says of the original review, "I could not have said it bette..."

I do not disagree with you about whether a comment such as "I do not like the book" is useful or not but not completely. Who says that there aren't people who, unlike you, care about "original reactions" of other people who have read the book?

Besides that, it is your patronising style I do not like in your comments. There are people that reading your previous reply, if it was addressed to them, would feel you are considering them to be unethical, illiterate and possibly borderline stupid. I personally do not care enough so "in my defense" all I have to say is that when a person who reads the original review by svnh says they agree, it means they also agree with her justification so their opinion IS justified.

Anyhow, such discussions are not why I joined goodreads and I find them to be an unproductive use of my time. I think we have all expressed our opinions clearly and there is no point in keeping this up.

I absolutely love this review, by the way. I know you wrote this a long time ago, but this is a disgusting love story full of lies, selfishness, and superficiality. Thank you.

and disgisting stupid ppl commenting books... but it's democracy...

It's better than the other crap Fitzgerald has spewed.

Cathy wrote: "It's better than the other crap Fitzgerald has spewed."

If you are goinmg to use such strong language about a writer whom many people admire and enjoy, the least you can do is to explain the reasons for your violently negative reaction.