Hope vs Reality: The Great Gatsby Chapter 4 - 5

See also the previous chapter 1 and 2 – 3.

Unveiling Gatsby and Daisy’s mysteries

Gatsby tells Nick his history: born rich, went to Oxford, gleaming career in military at war; he even shows off pieces of token proving his story. At lunch with Gatsby, Nick met the Jewish world gambler, Mr. Wolfshiem. On the other hand, Jordan also tells Nick Daisy’s history: how she fell in love with a young officer named Jay Gatsby, the separation, her marriage with Tom Buchanan, and how she reacted on her wedding day after receiving a letter that made her cried aloud. Then she had a baby, while Tom started cheating on her. It turns out that Gatsby had planned everything—bought the mansion, hosted parties—only to get closer to Daisy again, and now he needs Nick’s help for his plan.

The anticipated meeting

Gatsby puts big effort in asking Nick to invite Daisy to his house for tea, so that Gatsby can meet her there. He is so excited at the moment which he’d anticipated so much for five years; that the happiness of actually meeting Daisy at last doesn’t appear as he’d expected. Gatsby shows off the luxury of his mansion to Daisy; but his wealth suddenly looses its value in front of Daisy, and even the green light across the bay looses its sacredness once Daisy becomes reachable.

When hope is more real than reality

Why does Gatsby look confuse and restless when he finally meets Daisy? Out of shyness? Or is it because he is too excited? No, I believe it’s because he finds that the meeting he had imagined and planned for so long did not happen to be as he’d expected. This happens to us often, an event we’ve been anticipating for so long, that we’ve been working so hard to make it perfect, turns out to be just like that—not as special as we’ve expected. It’s because imagination is always better than realization. But does it mean that we ought not to have dreams? No, I believe we need to have dreams, as it gives us purpose to fight and work hard, it will guide us to achieve something. Although Gatsby seems to be a fool to have done absurd things to win Daisy, I think it’s not all his fault; he’d done that in the name of love, and love does make us foolish sometime.

Favorite passages

“He hadn’t once ceased looking at Daisy, and I think he revalued everything in his home according to the measure of response it drew from her well-loved eyes. (…) He stared around at his possessions in a dazed way, as though in her actual and astounding presence none of it was any longer real.” ~p 97.

“A faint doubt had occurred to him as to the quality of his present happiness. There must have been moments even that afternoon when Daisy tumbled short of his dreams—not through her own fault, but because of the colossal vitality of his illusion. It had gone beyond her, beyond everything. He had thrown himself into it with a creative passion, adding to it all the time, decking it out with every bright feather that drifted his way. No amount of fire or freshness can challenge what a man can store up in his ghostly heart.” ~p. 102.

They are perhaps just any ordinary passages for you, but I loved it so much, especially the second one. It seems to be distinguished from the others (particularly in chapter 4 and 5). I think it has made me officially in love with Fitzgerald’s writing!

Confusing passage

It’s from what Jordan Baker says to Nick about why Gatsby must ask Jordan to ask Nick whether he’d mind to do him a favor: “He’s afraid. He’s waited so long, he thought you might be offended. You see, he’s regular tough underneath it all.” ~p. 83

I don’t understand what Jordan means by ‘he’s regular tough underneath it all.’ Does she means Gatsby is thoroughly a violent person (tough = violent)? I think Gatsby is only too afraid of making the smallest mistake that would break his delicate bubble of hope. Or else he’s too sensitive about how people think of him; he doesn’t want Nick to think him as too pushy. Both my ideas doesn’t correlate with ‘tough’, so….what does that mean, can anyone help me?

~~~~~~

Absurdity & Moral Corruption: The Great Gatsby Chapter 2 – 3

This is part of chapter posts I make for WEM Self-Project. You can find the first chapter here.

Meeting Myrtle and attending Gatsby’s party

Tom brought Nick to meet his mistress Myrtle Wilson, wife of the owner of a small garage, and went together to New York to the couple’s luxury apartment. There and during the journey Nick witnessed the hedonic lifestyle they had, the shameless way Tom showed off his infidelity to public, and how rich women thought any men who were not wealthy and success were too “low” for them. The day was closed by the brutal scene when Tom broke Myrtle’s nose from being too noisy about Daisy.

Nick sensed emptiness and loneliness in the absurdly-luxury parties at Gatsby’s mansion, and in the metropolitan bustles of New York. There was a vulgar indifference in how strangers kept coming to and enjoying Gatsby’s parties without being invited or knowing the host, but even spread bad rumors about him. Nick also sensed the same vulgar indifference in Jordan Baker’s taking so lightly that she was endangering others by driving carelessly.

“(They) came for the party with a simplicity of heart that was its own ticket of admission.” ~p. 43.

The infidelity

The shameless affair of Tom and Myrtle is a product of moral decay of the society. Not only that they take it very openly, Myrtle’s sister thinks it’s all right. Myrtle thinks her husband is “lower” than her; but chooses Tom whom she takes as a “gentleman” because he is both rich and success. I only feel pity on Myrtle who takes “gentleman” as rich + success. Anyway, only a very foolish woman who calls her man gentle after he broke her nose….

Valley of ashes

I found quite a lot of metaphors in chapter two. First the valley of ashes; this is a quite dejected area where Wilson’s garage is; a land which is: “…so as to shrink away from a certain desolate area of land.” At first I thought it represents people who lost the battle of success, displaced by the new wave of wealth. However, considering the straight next metaphor, I changed my mind….

Eyes of Doctor T.J. Eckleburg

“The eyes of Doctor T.J. Eckleburg are blue and gigantic. (…) They look out of no face, but, instead, from a pair of enormous yellow spectacles which pass over a non-existent nose. (…) (The eyes) brood on over the solemn dumping ground.”

When I first read this passage, I instantly remembered a drawing made by a child who is asked to draw about his imagery God. And the child drew Him as a pair of enormous eyes looking down from a pair of enormous glasses; he imagined God as an observer who sees everything human does. So, I instantly thought that the Doctor T.J. Eckleburg billboard is probably representing God. The billboard is somehow overlooked, dejected, forgotten, and the eyes that “brood on over the solemn dumping ground”, I perceived, reflecting that God is observing sadly the moral corruption in His people, but on the other hand, these moral-corrupted people has also been abandoning God to pursue their new gods (money and leisure).

The yellow color

From chapter two alone, I have met quite a lot of things in yellow, cream or golden color; the Doctor T.J. Eckleburg’s spectacles, the yellow brick house where Wilson’s garage is, the dress of two girls in Gatsby’s party, yellow cocktail, dark gold turkeys, Myrtle’s cream-coloured dress in New York apartment (where her personality changed under the influence of the dress), and yellow windows of that apartment.  Browsing about the Eyes of Doctor T.J. Eckleburg, I got to learn that Fitzgerald did use several colors metaphor to represent moralities in this book. From all the yellows above, it’s not hard to guess that yellow here means moral decay or falsity.

Confusing passages

“Conduct may be founded on the hard rock or the wet marshes, but after a certain point I don't care what's founded on” –I didn’t find any satisfying answer over the internet, but I perceive it means that it doesn’t matter what an action had been intended for at first, the only think is important, is only the end result. If the result is the same, well….just ignore whether the first intention was right or wrong. Are you agree?

“… I was standing beside his bed and he was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear, with a great portfolio in his hands. Beauty and the Beast … Loneliness … Old Grocery Horse … Brook’n Bridge…” –Although there are many sites or blogs that suggest that Nick is either gay or bisexual, I think this only reflects what Nick had vaguely remembered about that brutal night in Myrtle’s apartment, which he left in a drunken state; small pieces of disgusting senses that had troubled him when he was awaken from sleep at McKee’s house. Or else, McKee—as he is a photographer—has taken photos which showed the proofs of those disgusting moral decay. What do you think? :)

~~~~~~~

The Great Gatsby: Introductory (Chapter 1)

In reference to the latest movie adaptation of The Great Gatsby which will be released this month, I am now re-reading the book together with some friends (you are welcomed to join, only this is not a formal read along). My first reading was last year when I read the Indonesian translation. Last October I have won Adam’s giveaway, and I picked the Penguin Classics edition of The Great Gatsby, hardback with lovely cover—thanks Adam! ;).

So here I am now, very eager to finally reading Great Gatsby in its original version. I’ll be doing it for my Well-Educated Mind Self Project, and that’s why you may expect to see posts after posts about Great Gatsby for at least one or two weeks. But it’ll only heighten our expectation for the movie, right? Now here is my first chapter post….

Chapter one is where Nick Carraway introduces us to what he’s going to narrate about, his own background and some hints about the Buchanans.

What is Great Gatsby all about?

Having been grown up in Midwest, Nick Carraway always believes in good morality, doesn’t criticize others, and tries to be tolerant. He moves to the east to start a new and promising life, however he left it that summer of 1922 in terrible disgust of moral decay of the people he met. Gatsby is the only one who escaped Nick’s severe criticism; Nick admires him for his strong optimism.

Meeting the Buchanans, a glimpse of Gatsby, and the first metaphor

Living in a huge mansion in East Egg, Tom and Daisy were extremely wealthy, but snob and indifferent; they enjoyed life leasurely without thinking much of others. Tom is a strong and dominating person; mentally as well as bodily (he hurt Daisy’s knuckle!). First hint of his corrupted moral are his opinion about how the whites should dominate the coloureds, and his having a mistress. Daisy is an empty-headed woman, likes to talk silly and irrelevant things, likes to be adored, and just like her husband, there is a hint of moral corrupting in her (her saying that ‘the best thing for a girl is to be fool’ when talking about her own daughter).

The slight glimpse of Gatsby is enough for Nick to see him as a man with firmness, self-esteem and strong determination. And Nick gives us the last clue of what we’re going to find in this book by describing how Gatsby stood facing the bay in the dark, stretching his quivering arms towards the green light on the far away dock across the bay (the first metaphor has appeared…).

Highlighted passages

The first two pages is the most engaging part of chapter one, where Nick foreshadows what is going to happen throughout the story. My favorites are what Nick believes about human morality and personal judgments.

“Whenever you feel like criticizing anyone, just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.” –I think this is one of universal bad habits we often come across. Nick’s father advice should remind us to always consider before judging!

“Reserving judgements is a matter of infinite hope.” –I think Fitzgerald wanted to say that by not judging people, we have a hope or positive thinking that people might be good; until it’s proved otherwise.

“A sense of the fundamental decencies is parceled out unequally at birth.” –Fitzgerald believes that we were born each with different quality of ethics or morality. I can judge something to be right, while you might believe it is wrong. This one bit of sentence makes me thinking ; tell me….do you agree with it?

For me, I always believe that when we are born, we carry the good and the bad inside us. The one that we nurture after that is going to define what we are going to be. The nurturing process would be influenced by our parents, our society, our environment, our culture, and other more complex circumstances that is stretched during our growing up towards adultness. So, I don't really agree with Fitzgerald here, because the 'unequal sense of the fundamental decencies' should be formed after birth. If we already carry it with birth, then what would be the use of free will that God grant us? It would be as if we are robots that are created of what we are, and can only be what we are meant to be. What do you think?

~~~~~~~

Maggie Tulliver in The Mill on The Floss: Character Thursday (61)

The Mill on the Floss tells us the life span of Maggie Tulliver, a rebellious and imaginative young girl who—unlike any ordinary girls of her age—appraised books and knowledge. Her imagination was broadening by the books which influenced her way of thinking. Maggie grown up to be a young woman who was hunger for being loved and cared, especially by her brother Tom. She was disappointed when Tom could not understand her and even angry with her.

Maggie was a woman who was misplaced and misjudged. She was being prejudiced by others, but she could bear it in silence only if Tom agreed with her and continued to love her. Unfortunately she didn’t get that from Tom. Nonetheless, Tom was her center of life, and neither Philip Wakem nor Stephen Guest could replace his position in Maggie’s heart. And this is unusual, because Tom had never been an attentive brother to Maggie since they were small children. So, I think it’s because Maggie had unconsciously idolized Tom. Maggie found in Tom everything she wanted to have but couldn’t: freedom and independence. Maggie always wanted to show off to Tom that she was also capable to do what people expected from boys, and she needed that recognition from Tom, to make him regarded her as his equal.

Emily Watson as Maggie Tulliver

During the second half of the book I kept questioning, whom that Maggie loved the most: Stephen or Philip? I believe Maggie loved Tom more than those two, but now I also think that above them all, Maggie loved freedom, independence and recognition. She could not make decision of whom she would choose for a husband, because she felt none of them brought her freedom. In Philip, she felt that they have a special bound since children, and her conscience ‘forced’ her to pick him. On the other hand, Stephen forced her to think about her love to him. If I were Maggie, I would leave everything behind, and accept the job offer as a nursemaid somewhere far away from home. But then, freedom is supposed to be free choices with all the consequences.

If only Maggie lived in this modern era, at least…we, women, have more freedom to decide what’s best for us.

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? Seethe details of Character Thursday first.

Zoladdiction Wrap Up

I must say that Zoladdiction is probably one of the most successful events I have hosted so far. Being a less famous classics author compared to Dickens, Austen or Shakespeare, I doubted at first that Émile Zola will create a magnet to attract readers when I had the idea to host this event. But surprisingly I found no less than 18 people has signed up to this event (not including those who might have not signed up but read and reviewed Zola anyway :D). Actually 18 people might not be what you’d call a crowd, but their excitement to start reading Zola (for first readers) amazed me, and their eagerness to read more of him really pleases me; and it only confirms that Zoladdiction has successfully brought the new addiction to read Zola!

As for me, these are what I’ve been doing during Zoladdiction:

Reading and reviewing….

The Masterpiece

La Bête Humaine

Character analysing….

Claude Lantier of The Masterpiece

Pierre Sandoz of The Masterpiece

Jacques Lantier of La Bête Humaine

Capturing the beauty from books I read….

Sunset Views From Zola's The Masterpiece

La Lison in Snow From La Bête Humaine

Talking about Naturalism and Impressionism....

Turn of the Century Salon post

Adding to my collection…

The Earth

Nana (still on the way from TBD)

Blogging….

Tidying up a bit my Émile Zola Blog

And of course, a lot of….

Blog walking….

To participants’ posts and read their thoughts and stuffs on Zola, and often find interesting point of view of books I haven’t read. Now I know which books I’m going to grab next! If you want to follow my step, this linky will help you. :)

Overall, I’m really satisfied this month; as usual with Zola books, the story would be echoing long after I have finished the book. And I have picked the right book at the right time, I began with The Masterpiece—which is not as poignant as the others—and ended with La Bête Humaine which turned out to be very thought-provoking!

That’s it! I wish Zoladdiction wouldn’t end so quick, but life must go on, and there are still many more authors and classics I want to read. So, au revoir Monsieur Zola, and I wish you all have a good time with him! What do you think, should I host another Zoladdiction next year? Would you consider participating again? :)

A special thanks to o (Delaisse) for her support and ideas, and to you, all participants who have share your excitements, ideas, and thoughts about Zola during the month!... :)

Let’s Read Plays: Check-In #2

Dear LRP-ers… I feel rather guilty for abandoning our yearlong reading event. My excuse will be that I’ve been very busy with my reading schedule and other reading events (classic excuses, I know!). Now we are in the end of the 6^th month of Let’s Read Plays, meaning that we have been through a half of the challenge. Let’s get to this check-in straight away….

You are invited to answer these questions in the comment box, or if you’d like to write a dedicated post, please feel free to leave your link in the comment box. You’re not obliged to answer all questions, and you can share your thoughts freely.

How have your Let’s Read Plays been during these six months, still exciting, or a bit boring? Did you read all the monthly themes, or did you miss several ones?

So far I only missed one, the Shakespeare’s History for February. But I am not going to abandon Richard III (the history play I planned to read); I’ve re-scheduled it for June (this time I’m going to make sure I would make it!). As for the rest, I could read every theme though not always in time. I’m still excited to read those famous plays, although I don’t think I’m going to be a big fan of plays in the end. But reading it every month really helps me to challenge myself.

What has been your favorite, or your failure (if any)?

Julius Caesar is the first play I have read for LRP, and it turns out to be my most favorite, along with Anthony and Cleopatra. See… I am always a fan of historical plays and anything about ancient Rome!

Which play are you expecting the most in the next six months?

Richard III; being another historical play, and I’m going to read it for my WEM self-project as well. I’m also anticipating to get back to Oscar Wilde again, he’s always hilarious and witty; An Ideal Husband is waving at me right now, though I must calm him down for a while until June :). And I’m excited to try George Bernard Shaw too, whom I pick for next freebie theme in September; Saint Joan (another historical theme…) would be my choice.

Have you been participated in Let’s Read Plays memes? Are you excited to participate more in the future?

Just to remind you, we have two memes for Let’s Read Plays. One is Listra’s Play Monthly Meme, with different topic each month. May’s would be music, one of the most interesting aspects in plays, I think, worth to expect very soon! You can read all the topics here.

The other meme is Character Thursday for Let’s Read Plays. You can write about character(s) from plays you read, and post it on Thursdays. You can put the linky in my Character Thursday for the week. At the end of Let’s Read Plays, each CT post would be counted as an entry for my Giveaway! You can check our characters collection here. And for you who have posted your CTs, please kindly check whether your posts have been added into the list. Poke me if I have missed it! :)

Let’s continue to have fun with plays, and see you again at our next check-in around July….

[Classic Movie] Les Miserables

Actually I’m not a fan of musical movies. The only one I was really satisfied with is The Phantom of The Opera (in Bahasa Indonesia). However, being the latest adaptation of one of Hugo’s masterpieces, and with a numerous talented actors/actresses playing here, I was intrigued at last to take a try on this Tom Cooper’s production. This is not a movie critic, it’s just how I thought of the movie, and it might be somehow biased.

Castings

Right after the first scene was on screen, Russell Crowe had drawn my attention. And I kept wondering during the film, wouldn’t Crowe be the more suitable casting for the constantly-brooding Jean Valjean, while Hugh Jackman could play the ever enthusiastic law servant Javert? I still think that would be more interesting. But anyway…I’ve never been in the movie industries…so, it’s just my personal opinion. But I was constantly admiring Javert slightly more than Valjean throughout the film—it’s perhaps because Crowe is so adorable and carries charismatic air in his uniform! Oh, just ignore my fangirling here… :)

 

The rest of the castings are pretty OK, although I still really don’t understand why Monsieur and Madame Thénardier must be made like a pair of clowns in Disney’s movies. Really!.... It’s only Éponine who is not as I’ve expected. She is lovelier than what I remember from the book, and I think her character here is indeed different from the book; she is sweet here, while in the book she is more bitter and determinate, do I remember correctly? But for me, in this film, Samantha Barks (who plays as Éponine) sings most beautifully among the females (and actually more beautiful and “live” than Cossette—played by Amanda Seyfried—who seems meek and unreal). Éponine’s dying scene in Marius’ embrace is the only one that had shed my tears.

Story and Plot

From what I vaguely remember of the book, the story follows the original story quite well. The plot is similar, but of course you cannot make a 1 hour 20s minutes film to cover the original 1000+ pages’ story! The adaptation is less engaging, and there are many parts that is missing, but what more can you expect?

Setting and Costumes

Both the setting and costumes are satisfying to me. The designers have done their homeworks by presenting the working class of France in 19^th century.

Crowe looks good in this
costume, eh?

All in all, this movie is quite entertaining, although sometimes I got bored when the song is too long. My favorite scenes are the opening scene when the convicts singing “Look Down”; Russell Crowe’s “Stars”—I just love the song and Crowe’s sexy voice ;)—and Samantha Banks’ “On My Own”.

Seven to ten stars for this movie!

~~~~~~

I watched this for Books Into Movies Monthly Meme #3