Double Dash on the Last Page of Gatsby

I would like to revisit the last page of The Great Gatsby, specifically the portion when Fitzgerald invokes Nick to end the piece. The phrase before the last sentence is is as follows: “And one fine morning——” (189). The imagery is incredibly strong here and I find it easy to imagine the end of a movie production when the narrator ties up all the loose ends. Moreover, I paid great notice to the fact there are two long dashes, rather than just one. Grammatically, the double dash makes no difference. That said, I think Fitzgerald’s inclusion of the double dash is more stylistic. For a novel that is centered around water (water is what separates, and thus keeps balance between West Egg and East Egg; it is also Gatsby’s mode of death), I think these double dashes lend hand to an aquatic theme. If I remember correctly, Carraway speaks this quotation as he looks over what is described to be the Long Island Sound. I think having two dashes mimics the wave-like quality of the water and how just like time, the waves keep coming and going no matter what. Time goes on forever. This eternal theme appropriately premises the last sentence about humans constantly being “borne back ceaselessly into the past” (189).

Does anyone have a similar interpretation?

Discomfort in the Great Gatsby

Upon my second reading of this book, still I find that one of the most memorable scenes is the exchange in the hotel room where Tom and Gatsby confront each other (beginning on page 126 in my version). What stands out to me the most is really how Fitzgerald framed the scene; continuous references to the extreme heat and the discomfort felt by everyone further emphasized the discomfort, tension and drama of the scene itself. All the characters, as well as the reader, just want the scene to end as soon as possible.

However, I find this same discomfort to be present throughout the book. It seems that in nearly every exchange of dialogue (I think specifically of most involving Tom), Fitzgerald goes out of his way to make them incredibly disjointed and awkward. Very often one character cuts another off, and most every conversation it seems ends with silence, which Fitzgerald seems to emphasize. What is Fitzgerald attempting to convey by doing this? Could he be making commentary about class, as we believe he is doing with other aspects of the narrative, or is it just something to do with his characters’ personalities and how they clash with one another?

Symbolism of the Mantlepiece Clock in Gatsby

A small detail that I would like to revisit from the last reading (that we did not get to in class), occurs in the scene when Gatsby attempts to act suave in front of Daisy but instead leans back and hits the mantle. In doing so, he nudges a “mantelpiece clock” onto the floor (87). This clock shatters and embodies the awkward confrontation that occurs between Gatsby and Daisy.

I bring up this detail because I would like to pose the question of whether we think there is deeper meaning to the object (specifically the clock) that Gatsby knocks off the mantle. Is it a reference to Gatsby’s warped perception of time— something he thinks can be repeated? Or is it more so a reference to Gatsby’s reliance on time and time’s ultimate failure at returning him the love he once had for Daisy? I would love to hear your thoughts.

Great Gatsby, 112-180

On page 159, Wilson makes a reference to the eyes of Doctor T.J. Eckleberg, aliking them to the eyes of God. He is makes a comment directed at his cheating wife, Myrtle, that “God is always watching.” I found this passage curious as throughout the novel it seems like a faithless community- in many ways, wealth and social standing dictates actions more than morals as seen through the greed, cheating and scandal. Furthermore, we have discussed Wilson as being one of the only true representations of the blue collar working class. This leads to the question: Does Fitzgerald see religion as a uniquely a value of the lower social classes?

Gatsby 112-180

“Gatsby was overwhelmingly aware of the youth and mystery that wealth imprisons and preserves, of the freshness of many clothes, and of Daisy, gleaming like silver, safe and proud above the hot struggles of the poor” (150).

This quote is interesting because it touches on how wealth can preserve things Gatsby values like youth and mystery but can also trap them in. Gatsby conception of time is not based on reality but instead on his own illusions of grandeur and making sure his love with Daisy is never unchanging. In this way, the promise of wealth and status are a prison that Gatsby cannot escape and because of this, is forever stuck in the past. Daisy’s wealth protects her from the daily struggles of poverty. Fitzgerald alludes to how distinct social classes were in the Roaring Twenties. Though this era is closely associated with wealth and a booming economy, there was still a big part of the population struggling in the ashes not far from the social playing field of the elite. Gatsby himself desires the stability and pride in being “like silver” and not having to struggle to survive. The personification of struggles being “hot” is also a good extension of how everything in the valley of ashes is dark, dirty and burned. The constant grind of living in such a place leaves you with no shine or vitality left.

Great Gatsby, (61-112)

“He was balancing himself on the dashboard of his car with the resourcefulness of movement that is so peculiarly American- that comes, I suppose, with the absence of lifting work or rigid sitting in youth, and even more, with the formless grace of our nervous, sporadic games. This quality was continually breaking thorugh his punctilious manner in the shape of restlessness He was never quite still; there was always a tapping foot somewhere or the impatient opening and closing of a hand.” pg 64

This passage from the Gatsby reading struck me as strikingly similar to the same nervous energy expressed in the Turner article. Here, we see nervousness as a lack of physically demanding work and a result of ‘our’/American “nervous sporadic games.” In Turner’s piece, this “peculiarly American” quality was attributed to the pioneer mentality, one which is constantly moving, at work. These different interpretations of nervousness, yet both aligning it with American culture, begs the questions of: “What are American attributes?” and “Where do they come from?” 

Skeptical of Gatsby

I think there might be another layer to Gatsby’s character that gets overlooked by most. When he meets Daisy, he gets really flustered and uncomfortable. I just don’t buy it and am wondering if that, too, is an act. My skepticism comes from his interactions with Tom. On p. 103, Tom is surprised and almost abhorred when Gatsby gets ready to leave with the woman who Tom says does not want him. The impression I got was that Gatsby has trouble picking up on social cues. Two pages later, p. 105, Gatsby introduces Tom as the polo player. Tom responds, “‘not me’…but evidently the sound of it pleased Gatsby, for Tom remained ‘the polo player’ for the rest of the evening'”. I interpreted that interaction as Gatsby very much so picking up on the social cue of Tom’s uncomfortableness but calling him the “polo player” anyway just to bother Tom. It then makes me skeptical of situations like p. 103 where Gatsby appears oblivious.

Hypothetical Novel (The Great Gatsby)

It’s my first time of reading this novel. Even I try to consciusly read the Great Gatsby, I still keep questioning myself in every chapter. From page 1 to 112, I am wondering about what Gatsby’s background is, why Daisy didn’t choose Gatsby but get married with Tom, how this novel relate to American dream, etc. It is really interesting that Fitzgerald shows complicated relations between Tom and Daisy, Gatsby and Daisy, Tom and Myrtle, George and Myrtle. I’m curious how Fitzgerald writes their relationship ending.

The Great Gatsby 60-112

For me, one of the most interesting lines of this reading is, “Americans, while occasionally willing to be serfs, have always been obstinate about peasantry.”(88) Coming from a time period of extreme wealth and prosperity, it makes sense that Fitzgerald notices this side of America in which people would rather enslave themselves to their work than live in poverty. Something interesting to consider within this point is how both Gatsby and Nick fit into this novel. For me, Gatsby pretty clearly falls into the archetype of the man who is willing to subvert freedom for money. However, Gatsby seems more nuanced. Although he has mentioned his interest in finance, we seems less caught up in status and money. Does this stem from his honest nature? Something also interesting to consider is Fitzgerald’s connection to France. Would he have found this observation equally valid in France? Did France’s culture allow him to see the flaws in America’s?

Nick Caraway, the original settler

Thus far in my second reading of Gatsby, it has been interesting viewing Nick Caraway as a third generation mid- western immigrant. After his family gained prominence in the mid-west, Nick was able to attend college and move east to West egg. Interestingly, Nick reflects that in coming to this new place, he is a “guide, a pathfinder, an original settler” and as a result is no longer lonely. In other words, nick experiences a fortitude that derives from his individualism similar to the individualism that Turner mentions in his thesis. However, important to keep in mind, is that Nick is immigrating to an already established society with strange and elitist norms that seem to consume everyone, and therefore he is not an original settler.

Daisy’s words/voice

Even with Gatsby being a third time read for me, I still cannot get over how hyperbolic Daisy’s descriptions are. Nick himself seems almost embarrassed at how intoxicating he finds her voice. Her voice is “glowing and singing” even in mundane situations (14). Daisy’s description of Nick reminding her of “an absolute rose” also shows how Nick though being mesmerized, is still objective enough to see how ridiculous she can be. The security and pride in her words are products of coming from old money and never having to struggle to be accepted. I think how women were viewed in this era also plays a part in her way of talking because they were seen as still having to maintain a certain level of taste and happy demeanor.

McKay, “America”

In McKay’s poem, “America”, she personifies the United States as this great, horrible, protecting beast. It is interesting to see the relationship between America and the voice of the poem, as at first it seems that the voice is being abused, but then welcomes this cultured threat as a test of his character. And yet despite all efforts, America’s ‘granite wonders’ sink like ‘priceless treasures sinking in the sand.’ This can be interpreted as the elusive American dream, or trying to attain the unattainable.

Great Gatsby (1-60)

For me, this is the second time I’m reading the Great Gatsby and so far its much more enjoyable on this read. The subtlety with which Fitzgerald paints the various members of society- from those of wealth (Gatsby), to the masses wishing to feel like they are (those attending Gatsby’s parties as well as the apartment crew), to those of pedigree (the Buchanans and Jordan)- becomes much more apparent as the daily aimlessness of each group is addressed. However as the readers we are also forewarned in the beginnings of the novel that our narrator, while often dependable due to others’ confidability in him, is also guilty of reacting to these confidences. Despite this confession, Nick Carraway assures us that at least in regards to Gatsby he is removed from judgment.

The Significance of the Frontier

When reading Turner’s excerpts, I was reminded of the fact that people experienced the frontier differently depending on where they were and when they arrived. We touched upon this topic in class, but I think it is something that requires more attention. In my mind, I think of the frontier as one thing: a place in the middle of the country with lots of prairies and Indian tribes. However, it is important we don’t have this singular image of the frontier stuck in our minds because it takes away the significance of the individualism that exists for each region. Turner talks about how, “it is evident that the farming frontier of the Mississippi Valley presents different conditions from the mining frontier of the Rocky Mountains” (4). We have to also remember that there were many different types of Indian tribes that inhabited these regions. Each encounter could pose a new challenge depending on who was already there. When the pioneers packed up their things to move out West, each person had a very different experience and I think that this is something that we should not discount.

Ownership and Dignity of Work

One of the themes that resurfaces often in O Pioneers!, I think, is the theme of ownership and dignity of work. The novel suggests that being devoted to one’s work and loving the work for its own merit provides a kind of dignity, a feeling of rough individuality, and a sense of purpose that one cannot really attain by other means. It is the same with the land; to Alexandra, “the people who love [the land] and understand it are the people who own it” (122). In dignified work, there is a level of mutuality and of coexistence between the land and the person toiling upon it. We begin to see a fundamental difference between struggling with the land –– a formidable, unforgiving force of nature –– and struggling against it.

Throughout the novel, though, we see other characters in Alexandra’s life who fall short of Alexandra’s simple self-determination; they fail to appreciate their work as an opportunity to make something of themselves aside from material gain, and instead turn to other satisfactory egresses, like alcohol, restless travel, or illicit love –– often meeting undignified and tragic ends. Emil and Marie, hopelessly in love, are killed by Frank who is sentenced with 10 years in prison. Meanwhile, Lou and Oscar, who are distracted by their jealousy and resentment towards Alexandra’s success and her relationship with Carl, struggle to subdue the land, and never achieve the noble stature or success of their older sister.

Alexandra’s Dreams

I thought that I would motivate a question that has been on my mind for a while now (please enlighten me, because I can’t seem to find the answers): What significance does Alexandra’s recurring dream –– “an illusion of being lifted up bodily and carried lightly by some one very strong” (80), by a god-like figure of the pastures, who smells sweetly of ripe cornfields –– have? Is it possible that these fantasies are a manifestation of Alexandra’s inner desire to be mobile, to be light and detached enough to be taken away from the land which is she so rooted to? A few months after Emil’s death, she is carried, once again, in the arm of the “mightiest of all lovers,” (112), and even sees him upon returning to her room, a mysterious figure marked by a long, white cloak, shoulders “as strong as the foundations of the world,” and a dark and gleaming arm. This time, Alexandra seems surprisingly resolved –– she comes to know, at last, “from whom it was she had waited, and where he would carry her.” A few days later, she travels to Lincoln to see Frank, the murderer of her brother, with an unusual sense of purpose and clarity. Do you think there’s a connection there?

Alexandra’s feeling toward Marie

Alexandra seems to feel very disappointed in Marie after everything happened. As in page 117, Cather narrated about Alexandra blaming on Marie “She blamed Marie bitterly. And why, with her happy, affectionate nature, should she have brought destruction and sorrow to all who had loved her ,…” It appears to Alexandra that Marie was the main reason to cause all the troubles. Later in the chapter, when Carl came to meet her she said “Could you have believed that of Marie Tovesky? I would have been cut to pieces, little by little, before I would have betrayed her trust in me! (120)” It is hard for Alexandra to believe and accept the truth that Marie and Emil had a secret affair. However, at the end she did not put any blame on Marie.  As they both, Carl and Alexandra continued the conversation they agreed that “There are women who spread ruin around them through no fault of theirs, just by being too beautiful, too full of life and love. (121)”

Alexandra’s Understanding of Death in Section Five

Following the death of her brother and close friend, Alexandra grapples with the idea of death. She wonders if death is similar to the darkness you experience before you’re born. Subsequently, as Alexandra lays in bed, she feels tired of life and perhaps even envious of her dead brother. These feelings cause Alexandra to conclude that Frank, not the murder victims, was “paying the heaviest penalty” (112). Moreover, seeing Frank only furthers her “disgust of life” (118). Thus, her somewhat positive view of death seems to help propel her sympathy for Frank in this section.

The Land of the Frontier

In Turner’s essay it is especially interesting to read how he refers to the land, and how that compares to Cather. Overall Turner refers to the land of the frontier as an intense force, which is at first “too strong for the man” (2). The pioneer must adapt to the environment by adopting techniques of the Natives, and only then will they be able to transform the wilderness. However, because of this, and perhaps more importantly, Turner states that the resulting society (and indeed people) that survive and perform this process are very much different from the way they were (… but the outcome is not the Old Europe… [but is] a new product that is American” (3)). In this way the frontier environment is a formidable opponent to pioneers, but at the same time an agent of great change and the means by which the American identity was formed.

How does this view compare with Cather and O Pioneers! ?

Just as an aside, I find it also interesting how through page 2 Turner made many references to Indian things such as trails, birch canoes, moccasins and scalping but at no point mentions any actual Native Americans.

In the final section of the book, I found it very interesting looking at the manifestation of blame among the characters, regarding the deaths of Emil and Marie. Lou and Oscar both blame Alexandra (which doesn’t surprise me based on their characters), Alexandra herself blames Emil and Marie for what happened to them, and Frank blames primarily himself, though he does say that he partially blames Marie, and that he hates her for “making [him] do [it]” (117).

However, does it seem as though Alexandra blames herself as well, but doesn’t speak of it? After all she has done a great deal to allow Emil to have (at least what she perceives as) more freedom in life and accomplish great things. Does she believe if she had done things differently this may not have happened? May that’s why she feels obligated to help Frank: the only person she can help now.