Subject
Re: MARY & GATSBY (fwd)
Date
Body
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 1994 12:20:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: PEHME@delphi.com
To: NABOKV-L%UCSBVM.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: MARY & GATSBY
The iconographic power of Jay Gatsby for
Americans comes from the representation of
a belief that one can make all the money in
the world and not be corrupted by it,
provided that one's love and desire is pure.
Unlike Tender is the Night where love is lost
to the growing adult strength of a woman,
The Great Gatsby's illusion that a man will
become a gangster just for the scratch to
buy the conditions of love for a vacuuous
woman does force the eyebrows to rise
skeptically. The Great Gatsby is a great book
because it is the embodiment of a modern
adolescent wish, proverbially known as the
American Dream, not because it is the kind
of literature of enchantment Nabokov evokes.
Gatsby is a wonderful lie, because it provides
every American the illusion you can have
your cheesecake and eat it too. Imagine the
absurdity of Billionaire Bill modeling himself
after Jay Gatsby. In reality one cannot make
money bootlegging or at computer operating
systems and still have a transcendent love on
the side (Bill's memory and past is on a hard
drive. Poor Bill, can't find enough meaning--
love--in $6 billion).
Moreover, Gatsby is not attempting to
recapture a past love. He is attempting to
recreate the illusion of the past in the present
so that Daisy and Jay can settle into another
illusion where Jay was never the poor boy in
love with the wealthy girl, but where they
both can be in wealthy perpetual love. He
doesn't want to recover his true past. He
wants to buy an illusion of the past, and it
appears that Fitzgerald knows it (love and
money are ultimately incompatible). But
Fitzgerald cannot help thinking that it's
swell, sport. No madeleines dipped in tea
here. To recapture the past is an effort to
recover eternity. But Gatsby flees the reality
of his love and of love in general, while
Tender in the Night does not do that.
Thus, the fairy tale of Gatsby is false. The
fact that Gatsby can even be considered an
"everyman" demonstrates he is not a prince in
disguise or in adversity who must win his lady
love. (The everyman believes that love can be
had for gold. Well, we all know that any ditz
can be bought if the price is right.) Gatsby's
love is false, because he loves an illusion of
his own making, not a woman. Moreover,
the illusion, the copy of the woman, is better
than the real thing, like a Disney copy of a
castle or, for that matter, a Disney idea of
what childhood is. Tender is the Night is a
better book because it deals with real love and
real loss. Fairy tale Gatsby is not great
literature like fairy-tale Ada, for example.
Consider, for example, what kind of sex does
Gatsby have with Daisy (I mean, how do
they do it? or do they simply, like
adolescents, peer into each other's eyes and
sigh meaningfully?), and compare it to what
goes on in Ada. Blush. What exactly is the
depth of Gatsby's passion in comparison to
any of Nabokov's lovers? Gatsby is very
shallow.
Gatsby appeals to most Americans because
most Americans believe that being fabulously
wealthy is the greatest thing in the world,
next to love of course. In truth, most
Americans believe that loves exists for all, for
everyman, while wealth is hard to come by.
Gatsby's appeal is money, not love. A Gatsby
without money is like day without sunshine;
it's not like the real thing. No wonder
Nabokov found Gatsby terrible.
Yet, I cannot help to love Gatsby. I read it
about once a year and have been doing so
since I was younger than Nick. It is an
adolescent wish to be a Gatsby, a wish that
cannot come true. Gatsby's astonishing
strategic and tactical planning--and
success--to rework the world is completely
improbable. But its improbablity is
adolescently American, like the so-called
American Dream where happiness is seen in
competely material terms. But we are all
entitled to such nostalgia. Unfortunately, very
few of us can have a childhood so rarefied
that it is enclosed among opaline palaces on
the Neva. Nabokov could afford to spend his
life attempting to recover his past because he
had an exceptional one. Most Americans do
not. To remake ourselves like Gatsby is as
close as we will ever get to that. All it takes is
heart and a lot of cash (Bill presses the right
button on Microsoft Mouse and finds
happiness; it is possible!).
Finally, it should be noted, Fitzgerald is
not a comedic writer. If he had been, perhaps
Gatsby would have been a very great work of
literature that Nabokov would have enjoyed.
As it is, Gatsby is more like a great American
novel, and that's no so bad either. It's for
everyman.
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 1994 12:20:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: PEHME@delphi.com
To: NABOKV-L%UCSBVM.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: MARY & GATSBY
The iconographic power of Jay Gatsby for
Americans comes from the representation of
a belief that one can make all the money in
the world and not be corrupted by it,
provided that one's love and desire is pure.
Unlike Tender is the Night where love is lost
to the growing adult strength of a woman,
The Great Gatsby's illusion that a man will
become a gangster just for the scratch to
buy the conditions of love for a vacuuous
woman does force the eyebrows to rise
skeptically. The Great Gatsby is a great book
because it is the embodiment of a modern
adolescent wish, proverbially known as the
American Dream, not because it is the kind
of literature of enchantment Nabokov evokes.
Gatsby is a wonderful lie, because it provides
every American the illusion you can have
your cheesecake and eat it too. Imagine the
absurdity of Billionaire Bill modeling himself
after Jay Gatsby. In reality one cannot make
money bootlegging or at computer operating
systems and still have a transcendent love on
the side (Bill's memory and past is on a hard
drive. Poor Bill, can't find enough meaning--
love--in $6 billion).
Moreover, Gatsby is not attempting to
recapture a past love. He is attempting to
recreate the illusion of the past in the present
so that Daisy and Jay can settle into another
illusion where Jay was never the poor boy in
love with the wealthy girl, but where they
both can be in wealthy perpetual love. He
doesn't want to recover his true past. He
wants to buy an illusion of the past, and it
appears that Fitzgerald knows it (love and
money are ultimately incompatible). But
Fitzgerald cannot help thinking that it's
swell, sport. No madeleines dipped in tea
here. To recapture the past is an effort to
recover eternity. But Gatsby flees the reality
of his love and of love in general, while
Tender in the Night does not do that.
Thus, the fairy tale of Gatsby is false. The
fact that Gatsby can even be considered an
"everyman" demonstrates he is not a prince in
disguise or in adversity who must win his lady
love. (The everyman believes that love can be
had for gold. Well, we all know that any ditz
can be bought if the price is right.) Gatsby's
love is false, because he loves an illusion of
his own making, not a woman. Moreover,
the illusion, the copy of the woman, is better
than the real thing, like a Disney copy of a
castle or, for that matter, a Disney idea of
what childhood is. Tender is the Night is a
better book because it deals with real love and
real loss. Fairy tale Gatsby is not great
literature like fairy-tale Ada, for example.
Consider, for example, what kind of sex does
Gatsby have with Daisy (I mean, how do
they do it? or do they simply, like
adolescents, peer into each other's eyes and
sigh meaningfully?), and compare it to what
goes on in Ada. Blush. What exactly is the
depth of Gatsby's passion in comparison to
any of Nabokov's lovers? Gatsby is very
shallow.
Gatsby appeals to most Americans because
most Americans believe that being fabulously
wealthy is the greatest thing in the world,
next to love of course. In truth, most
Americans believe that loves exists for all, for
everyman, while wealth is hard to come by.
Gatsby's appeal is money, not love. A Gatsby
without money is like day without sunshine;
it's not like the real thing. No wonder
Nabokov found Gatsby terrible.
Yet, I cannot help to love Gatsby. I read it
about once a year and have been doing so
since I was younger than Nick. It is an
adolescent wish to be a Gatsby, a wish that
cannot come true. Gatsby's astonishing
strategic and tactical planning--and
success--to rework the world is completely
improbable. But its improbablity is
adolescently American, like the so-called
American Dream where happiness is seen in
competely material terms. But we are all
entitled to such nostalgia. Unfortunately, very
few of us can have a childhood so rarefied
that it is enclosed among opaline palaces on
the Neva. Nabokov could afford to spend his
life attempting to recover his past because he
had an exceptional one. Most Americans do
not. To remake ourselves like Gatsby is as
close as we will ever get to that. All it takes is
heart and a lot of cash (Bill presses the right
button on Microsoft Mouse and finds
happiness; it is possible!).
Finally, it should be noted, Fitzgerald is
not a comedic writer. If he had been, perhaps
Gatsby would have been a very great work of
literature that Nabokov would have enjoyed.
As it is, Gatsby is more like a great American
novel, and that's no so bad either. It's for
everyman.