Re: Salinger & Burns (NOT George!)actually not, but Gatsby
Tim O'Connor (tim@roughdraft.org)
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 22:45:48 -0500
At 6:52 PM -0500 on 12/17/1999, you wrote:
> I thought Gatsby was good, but I don't think I'd call it the "Great
> American Novel." Anybody care to explain why it's so well thought of?
Boy, this is really jumping into a tankful of hungry, flesh-eating fish....
I think one reason is that it is a nearly perfect story in terms of
structure (with a few exceptions that were noted in a recently
published scholarly edition).
In addition, we see several characters follow full circles: Nick, the
narrator, going from the romantic idealist to the more hard-bitten,
more cynical, yet still holding-his-integrity and, perhaps, still
believing that magic can happen ("the green light") in life. Gatsby,
transmogrified into, well, let me not spoil it for those who haven't
read it. Daisy and Tom, so dull and ordinary, but still fascinating.
(In recent scholarship, a researcher found that a lot of the
beautifully written prose came about after Fitzgerald wrote the book.
An inveterate revisor, he made changes galore. He treated his
galleys like I treat manuscript pages on legal pads!)
Then there is the writing, the craft, itself: the magic and surreal
valley of the ashes and Dr. Eckleberg's billboard, the small scene
with the unsavory Wolfshein, the horror of the car accident, and
these help make the book come to life. It has humor,
unpredictability, surprising turns of events, and one of the most
beautiful ending sentences, like the one that ends Joyce's short
story, "The Dead."
I, of course, am completely without ANY copy of the book, so I can't
back up a word I've said with citations or examples.
I don't know if it is THE great American novel, but it ranks up
there, easily. I know that when I read it, in one sitting, I went to
bed and stared at the ceiling, amazed that someone could make so
beautiful a book.
--tim o'connor