Jump to content

Talk:The Great Gatsby/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Untitled

I can't really see the point in having all those titles and announcements ("Detailed synopsis") with hardly anything to follow. I strongly suggest you (i e anyone planning to add something) should do it the other way round: First write the damned thing, including all subheadings, then add it to the article. The way it's being done here is confusing and also gives the (initially wrong) impression that here is yet another article that has not been finished yet. Next thing someone will add that stupid stub message. <KF> 17:38, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Here is the unfinished synopsis, removed from article:

Detailed synopsis

Chapter I – The book opens with one of the most famous passages from any work of American literature:

In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I've been turning over in my mind ever since.

"Whenever you feel like criticizing any one," he told me, "just remember that all the people in this world haven't had the advantages that you've had."

Spoken by the narrator, Nick Carraway, the first sentences set up a chapter of self-commentary. Nick characterizes himself as a moral and tolerant person, which attracts the confidence of others. His tolerance has its limits, and also its exceptions- Gatsby is mentioned as the embodiment of all that Nick despises, but is exempted from Nick's limits of judgment.

Nick writes from the summer of 1922, when he decides to move East, to Long Island, New York, and enter the bond business. He rents a house on the West Egg, an unusual land formation opposite the East Egg across the Long Island Sound. The East Egg is home to the old aristocratic families, while the West Egg is the home of the newly rich, filled with displays of poor taste and incredible wealth. Nick happens to live next to one such display, revealed to be Gatsby's mansion. Hope it will blossom! --18.51.0.194 17:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nick Carraway-Protagonist?

"The protagonist of the novel is Nick Carraway This is a very argumentative claim. One could argue over whether Nick or Gatsby is the protagonist. Nick does very little in the story, whereas Gatsby drives the majority, if not all, of the plot. Gatsby is probably the protagonist, Nick being a 'more than partially involved narrator.'

Okay, I can see you have changed "protagonist" back to "narrator" in the summary. When I wrote that summary a long time ago (see [2]) I wrote "first person narrator". I have no idea why, but dozens of people have found it necessary to add or change something here, which made this text somewhat messy. If you have a look at other articles on works of literature, hardly anyone ever expands them or changes something. Would it be valid to conclude that The Great Gatsby is one of the few novels people have actually READ? <KF> 23:30, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Despite the focus on Gatsby, the real journey is that of the hypocritical narrator, Nick Carroway. (I say hypocritical only becuase the words and actions he describes himself of taking are not always congruent. This makes him an unreliable narrator, a common occurrence in literature.) He takes a lesson learned from Gatsby to grow. Gatsby, on the other hand, can be a main character, but certainly not the only one. His growth measurable to Nick Carroway's is much less noticeable. In fact, it may be said that he regresses. Nick Carroway realizes the futility of trying to realize his dream in a place of such turmoil and returns to the open land that from 1492-(even today?) represents the freedom of possibility THE WEST. 143.88.130.58 (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)TerraK

Gatsby and the American Dream

The Great Gatsby, a novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald, is about the American Dream, and the downfall of those who attempt to reach its decieving goals. This story of western civilization since the Renaissance has been one of optimistic hope of reaching something that does not exist. With each passing decade, it seemed that science, technology, knowledge and liberty was bringing man closer to a utopia. With the dawn of the twentieth century, just as it seemed that man finally had the means to achieve the dreams of the past, the optimistic drive for the future collapsed into disillusionment and dismal pessimism. Nowhere was the fall more catastrophic than in America where the dreams had been greatest and the fall had been shattering. Fitzgerald and Miller are both able to use their characters to express the grandeur and the ordeal of the tarnished American Dream. Jay Gatsby, the central figure of the story, is one character who longs for the past. Surprisingly he devotes most of his adult life trying to recapture it and, finally, dies in its pursuit stating that the american dream is in fact, an illusionary goal. The Major Theme An major theme in The Great Gatsby is the magical escapades of Jay Gatsby. As a wizard in the 20th Century society, Gatsby struggles to gain the acceptance of his peers. He can never openly reveal his powers because of the risk of social intolerance. The eventual dual he faces with "Gerald Williams" claims his life, showing how society can never be tolerant of differences in relation to the American Dream. ==The Oggsford Page== The merger box at the top of this well put together article is unsightly, and could easily be dealt with by adding the small amount of information in that stub to the "Trivia" section of this article, or deleting the Oggsford page altogether.

Literary elements-- and Homework Help?

I'm moving the entire lit-crit section here. It reads like the outline of a half-baked high-school paper. We should move back pieces as soon as we find sources for them, but as it stands, all of this violates the rules on original research.jdb ❋ (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


It's sort of weirdly ickypedian to call this "lit-crit" when it's simply an explication. Is this standard practice? Sort of half-baked synopsis=good, but random notes on thematic content=bad. What's the point of gathering knowledge if it's restrained in this fashion. Is it the depth to which you object or the impropriety of introducing ideas within your domain? (WHO WROTE THIS? Why no info?)


NEW POST: I agree with Jdb. Someone should warn the desperate highschool students whose needs are, perhaps inevitably, shaping this article. If you try to copy the half-baked, superficial conclusions below you'll flunk. America wasn't interested in money before the 1920s? Fitzgerald wrote his novel to stick it to The Man? From the comments below you'd think Fitzgerald was Billy Joe Armstrong. I love the one about the air mattress being a symbol of Christ's cross! Look, it's a short novel. Just read it, and think for yourself.Profhum (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Structure

  • Nonlinear representation of time
  • 1st person limited point of view
  • reported points of view of secondary characters

Themes

I honestly believe that these are not themes and should be changed to motifs because that's what they are. They're recurring themes. Discuss, please.Desouki 20:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree they are motifs, not themes, but do need to be included in the article as soon as possible. Csonnich 07:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Appearance Versus Reality
  • Gatsby fantasizes over Daisy to such an extent that the reality of the actual person can never live up to his expectations. The same applies to Gatsby's gathering of power and material wealth. This is the ultimate tragedy of Gatsby's character — he is not content living with only his ghost-like fantasies, yet the reality of life can never live up to his grand ambitions.
  • Time
  • When Nick Carraway makes a remark that people can't recreate the past, Gatsby objects, saying, "Of course you can." Gatsby not only fantasizes about the future, but the past as well, perhaps imagining Daisy as more pleasant than she really was. This is yet another source of Gatsby's inability to find satisfaction in life.
  • Failure of the American Dream
  • The American dream, the idea that one can get ahead with hard work and moral righteousness, no longer exists and has been replaced by a desire for money.
  • The rise and fall of the American Dream. It is debatable whether Buchanan represents the American Dream, by which people obtain their wealth openly and legally, whatever their status in society, in contrast to Gatsby, for whom the acquisition of wealth has its origins in the underworld. Tom Buchanan is unfaithful; Daisy Buchanan is artificial; Gatsby himself is an enigmatic and shadowy figure. This is highlighted by the passage regarding the Dutch settlers near the end of the book. Just as the settlers envisioned a limitless world of possibility as they caught a glimpse so did Gatsby also catch a glimpse of an entirely new world of the aristocracy. The fall of the dream is the reality that results from the initial world of limitless possibility.
  • Minor Themes
  • The novel discusses questions of racism through the character of Tom Buchanan who, on top of his loose morals, is also a white supremacist. This theme, however minor in its focus, adds to the Buchanans' corruption in contrast to Gatsby.
  • The contrast between East and West. Fitzgerald contrasts the Eastern and Western portions of the United States in many of his works (Diamond as Big as the Ritz is a prime example) but in Gatsby, West Egg (where Nick lives) is visually the more garish of the two and of a distinctly lower class, while East Egg is where the "old money" lives, and of a higher class. In addition, Tom and Daisy move to East Egg from the midwestern suburb of Lake Forest, Illinois. Lake Forest at the time (though this depiction is still fairly accurate) mirrored the social structure of West and East Egg, with much of the "new money" concentrated in the west side of Lake Forest, while most of the "old money" lives on or near Lake Michigan, on the east side of Lake Forest. This even more obvious contrast gives the reader a clear idea of the author's opinion on social classes in America during his time.

Symbolism

  • The green light on the end of Daisy's dock is introduced at the end of Chapter 1, when Gatsby reaches, "trembling", out toward it across the Sound. It may represent Gatsby's dreams and hopes, but has other, more subtle, associations such as money and the go-go attitude depicted of the 20s. The light also seems to symbolize the impossibility of Gatsby winning back Daisy, being far away in the distance and out of reach. It can also be interpreted as a veil that hides the true Daisy from Gatsby's eyes. Green is also the color of jealousy, and — while Gatsby himself does not outwardly display any such kind — there is a possibility that he is jealous of Daisy's marriage with Tom Buchanan. It should be noted that around this time, there was a lighthouse just off the coast of East Egg which displayed a green light; however, in real life, the green light was replaced several years before the novel takes place. The light turning on and off suggests the futility and the briefness of Gatsby's dream. Also this is a mechanical light, proving again how poorly founded Gatsby's dream is, or suggesting that his real desire, through Daisy, is material status.
  • The clock that Gatsby, in his nervousness, knocks off the mantlepiece when he is first re-introduced to Daisy is symbolic of his desire to turn back time, and to relive the life he once had with Daisy.
  • Fitzgerald was among the American expatriate who lived in Paris in the 1920s. The name Gatsby is a close homophone of the French word gaspille from the verb gaspiller ("to waste"). It also is a pun on "gat," the slang term for pistol which references the illicit way in which he had earned his money (bootlegging and selling his wares over-the-counter in a chain of pharmacies) and for the way in which he dies.
  • The air mattress Gatsby struggles in carrying to his pool which he was shot in may be a symbol of Jesus carrying a cross to the place of his crucifixion.
  • There are many images of thin moons, faded moonlight, stars and single body parts. These all imply the fragmented world in which they live and that attempts to grasp for a moment are futile as what exists is temporal and elusive.
  • At the end of Chapter 6, Gatsby sees the blocks of the sidewalk forming a ladder, but knows he can only climb it alone if he wants to "suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder." The ladder symbolizes the social ladder and that Gatsby must choose between love and class. However, he decides to try to achieve both and ends in destruction.
  • The colors white and yellow have special significance in the novel. White is a symbol of purity and goodness, while yellow is the color of wealth which causes corruption and greed. Gatsby's world, East Egg and West Egg, is one that superficially appears pure, but is less savory at its core. Similarly Daisy projects an image of innocence, but that is later revealed to be merely a facade. She is unconcerned about the consequences of her choices, and acts solely on the basis of what she wants at that moment in time. Even her name relates to this theme, because a daisy is white on the outside, but yellow on the inside. Gatsby used two cars: one, which is a cream color, towards the beginning of the novel, and the yellow "death car" with which Daisy and Gatsby strike and kill Myrtle Wilson.
  • Water imagery abounds in the novel including the houses and women floating on the sea, the "foul dust floating in the wake" of Gatsby's dreams and the "beat on, boats against the current" image with which the book ends. This suggests the uncertainty of life for the characters and the lack of a solid foundation on which to base their lives. Within modernist art water imagery was common as the characters are always unsure where fate will carry them.
  • The hot and cold is also a key symbol, to show the tension in the book "heating up" (rising action) and cooling down (falling action).
  • The Billboard of Dr. T.J. Eckleberg's eyes are ambiguous. They may represent the eyes of God looking over the valley of ashes, east, and west egg. His Blue eyes represent heaven, peace, truth, hope, life, and water. Or, as Fitzgerald hinted in letters to the publisher, they may be intentionally meaningless on their own. They only adopt specific symbolic value in the novel when it is actively invested in them by characters, eg they do not suggest to represent god until the point Wilson describes them as such, whilst the scepticism of Nick of this idea reinforce the idea of them containing only personal meaning.
  • It is notable that many of the female characters have names of flowers (e.g. Myrtle, Daisy). Like the flower, "Daisy" is weak and fragile, yet beautiful. They are all seen primarily as sources of empowerment and meaning for the men in the novel. They could also represent the desire of men to possess the women as they please, as decorations they may exhibit to others, as Tom does with Myrtle. Gatsby also seeks to possess Daisy, though not for the same reason Tom wants Myrtle. Gatsby puts Daisy up on a pedestal; admires her for her beauty and her seeming perfection, as one would admire a flower for its beauty.
  • Fitzgerald, along with Ernest Hemingway and other expatriates, constantly resurrected the theme of a "waste land" established by T. S. Eliot in his poem of the same name. In the poem, Eliot speaks constantly of loneliness and despair while conjuring dark and depressing imagery such as bones and ruined cities in order to reflect his theme. It is no coincidence that in The Great Gatsby the road from West Egg to New York City contains a veritable waste land known as the "valley of ashes". In one interpretation, the ash heap, which George Wilson lives in, symbolizes the constant plight of the poor while they endure the constant oppression of the wealthy and the seemingly toxic output of the capitalist system of which they are the victims. The eyes of T.J. Eckleburg which overlook the ash heap serve as a reminder that even though the wealthy may live well on earth and the poor, as George Wilson, have to bear a waste
  • The eyes of the T.J. Eckleburg billboard and their placement in the valley of ashes suggests a sense of judgement (they are constantly being watched) such as when Mr. Wilson is looking outside into Eckleburg's eyes remembering saying to his wife, "God knows what you've been doing...You may fool me, but you can't fool God." However, it also introduces a theme of cryptic social interactions and the sensation of "cloudy vision." The eyes are wearing glasses — clearly seeking clarity but constantly obstructed by the "dust." It can also be noted that upon her death, Myrtle is "kneeling" infront of the billboard, further illustrating religious connotations and imagery of judgement before T.J.Eckleburg. The fact that the billboard advertises vision also symbolises the moral blindess of the characters in the novel. The dust might symbolize the complicated sins of the people of the city, especially as they relate to Daisy, Tom, Gatsby, and Myrtle.
  • The consumption of alcohol is also significant. The 1920s society is construed as a hedonistic, materialistic culture which has become obsessed with money, pleasure and the importance of appearance. Alcohol, it seems, adds to the attraction, ignorance and acceptance of such a world. Nick's perception of the parties changes rapidly as he consumes alcohol, changing them from gaudy and unpleasant to something "elemental and profound". We also sense his acclimatisation to life in New York as he tells us the party in Tom's apartment is only the second time in his life he has gotten drunk. It should also be noted that the story takes place during the era of Prohibition in America, when the manufacture, sale and transport of alcohol were illegal. This suggests that Tom is above the law, like Gatsby.
  • The valley of ashes, which is mentioned a few times, has been thought to represent the social degradation over time.

Here's more. Again, this violates WP:NOR; needs to be sourced. jdb ❋ (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Themes

Time and money are not themes. They are recurring themes, making them motifs. They appear in the story many, many times. Themes usually appear in one or two passages. Please discuss before this is changed. Desouki 20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: The delineation between theme and motif is very approximate. Themes reccur, as do motifs - lexicographically they are nigh identical, although the implication is that themes are stronger ideas that run through a novel without individual, blatant exposition, whereas motifs crop up noticeably without influencing the course of the piece hugely.

  • Time

Though clearly delineated by the final passage, time comes back again and again in Fitzgerald's work. In his first face to face meeting with Daisy, Gatsby himself is tellingly described as "an overwound clock." Indeed, when told he can't repeat the past, the title character exclaims, "Of course you can." Later, in his confrontation with Tom, Gatsby wants Daisy avow that she's never loved her husband, virtually erasing the past in one stroke.

  • Money

Daisy's voice "sounds like money." Nick Carraway comes from a family of money in the Middle West. Tom is the very definition of socio-economic privilege. Jay Gatz devotes his life to acquiring his love by the power of money. Meyer Wolfsheim fixes the World Series with and for money. Like so many American books, from McTeague to Ragtime to The Wings of a Dove, getting and holding money is a focal point, a source of power that informs and controls the fictional world.

  • Mechanization/The Changing World

Gatsby's car shows his worth, and sets him apart from the polo ponies of Tom's old world living. The car that kill's Tom's lover--not to mention the auto mechanic who lives in poverty--show a dichotomy between the mechanized and ideal worlds. Nick sells his car to move back West, rejecting the industrial, impersonal environment of New York.

  • Truth

At the outset, though the narrator calls himself "the only honest man he knows," the novel shows continual prevarication, from Tom's affair to Gatsby's underhanded efforts to enrich himself. Even Gatsby's past is hardly straightforward, a mix of bent truth and wishful thinking that call into question his "greatness." Though the truth is highly valued, almost as exalted as Daisy herself, it's exactly her truthfulness in her confrontation with Tom that shatters the title character's illusions, and eventually his life. Most importantly, Carraway sets the standard for the unreliable narrator--a man who values but hardly upholds a standard of unvarnished honesty.

I really must take issue with this characterization of Nick. In my experience he is not generally discussed as an unreliable narrator. Nick is never seen as participating in the dishonesty described here, and hence is a contrast to the other characters. Helmling 07:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Geography

"East Egg and West Egg are thinly disguised versions of Port Washington and Great Neck, New York."

Actually, from the explanatory notes of the 1995 paperback edition:

The fictionalized geography of The Great Gatsby was based on the actual geography of Long Island and the borough of Queens. See map on page 206. —p. 208

On the map, Great Neck is West Egg and Manhasset Neck is East Egg. --Geopgeop 09:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the map and is the best evidence of Fitzgerald's vison. It should be Great Neck and Manhasset.

Major themes

Removing the lit crit section is one thing, but I believe that a section describing Major themes is in fact part of the Wikinovel Project format. 203.45.11.154 05:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC) haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.112.196 (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot line holes

This is a really inadequate summary of the book, here are some comments:

- Of course Tom knew that Daisy hit and killed Myrtle. Fitzgerald didn't choose the words "conspiring" (as Daisy and Tom were the night after) for a reason. Daisy is morally weak, she would have told Tom.

- No mention of Wolfshien, which is critical to understand that Gatsby is new money, while Tom is old money.

- There needs to be far more theme detail about the "corrupted American dream". i.e., the dog, supposed to be loyal, runs away. Family dinner, supposed to be uniting and personal, and time for family, yet Tom is interrupted by a phone call from his lover. Baseball, a "family sport", yet it has been fixed and corrupted. Daisy "searches for the longest day in the year, then misses it", obviously the elite rich have nothing to do with their lives...

There is seriously so much more to this book than the literal level. Of course, I understand that this is Wikipedia, but I mean, you can't talk about Great Gatsby without understanding the key themes. Rake 07:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced Composition Section

I am the one responsible for adding the unreferenced Composition section to the Gatsby article about a week ago. I realized after I'd composed it that I didn't know enough about citing sources according to the wikipedia guidelines, but I thought it better to go ahead and post the remarks I'd drafted anyway because I was shocked at how threadbare the Gatsby article was. I see now that there is a lot of information caught in limbo here because of lack of sources citation and a central organizing theme to the article.

What I'd really like to do is see the entire Gatsby article redrafted to be more inclusive and informative. My students and I will be working with Gatsby at the beginning of the coming semester and I think that will afford an opportunity to bring a lot of resources to bear. Between now and then I will read more thoroughly through the wiki guidelines for situations like this. For the time being, I have posted links to the two sources I referenced most in composing the section in question. I don't think there is anything I included from my own recollections that is not verified in one of these two documents.

If anyone has any advice, warnings, thoughts, instructions, etc. about this article, please let me know. Helmling 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and can I remove the "unreferenced" flag, or do I need to wait for an admin to approve?

Vandalism

I just undid a particularly bad(not as in effect, but rather in content. At least be creative here, people!) vandalism, care of 68.200.72.236. It comes out as being a DSL IP, so its probably some kid avoiding doing his homework.

Perhaps a registered-users only lock on this page?

Ekashp 05:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this page certainly attracts more than its share of vandals --- probably mostly students who are frustrated at on being required to read this book. The downside of locking out anonymous users is that you lose the good edits that anonymous users sometimes provide --- I looked through the past week or so of history, I see a couple good edits by anonymous users along with many many cases of vandalism by anonymous users. Still, the amount of effort that goes into clearing up the vandalism on this page is pretty high. The policy on protection of pages refers to "heavy and continued vandalism" as being a reason to indefinitely semi-protect a page --- is what we're seeing "heavy" enough to semi-protect this page?Rickterp 15:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's necessary, about a half-dozen editors who check into wikipedia pretty regularly appear to have this on their watch list. And it only takes a couple seconds to revert the vandalism. I went through the edit history for this past week and the page only spent about 2 hours -- out of 168 -- in a vandalized state before being fixed. Most of the vandalism was pretty minor as well. Further, if we protect it, the vandalism will probably just leak over onto the F. Scott Fitzgerald page, and we won't really have accomplished much. --JayHenry 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Minnesota?

I just noticed that this article was categorized in "fictional characters from Minnesota." I'm not sure this categorization is correct. For one, this article isn't about the character but the book (and why does Jay Gatsby, one of the most important characters in literature not have his own page?). But more importantly, I'm pretty sure Gatsby was from North Dakota. --JayHenry 15:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Just why these inventions were a source of satisfaction to James Gatz of North Dakota, isn't easy to say." -- Chapter 6, paragraph 4. It goes on to say that he attended St. Olaf's College in Minnesota, and before the funeral: "I think it was on the third day that a telegram signed Henry C. Gatz arrived from a town in Minnesota."
I would think that the discrepancy between where Jay was from and from whence his father came was probably unintentional, though Mr. Gatz mentions that Jay bought him the house in which he currently lives. Fitzgerald was notoriously bad with details, and this could have been something that Max Perkins missed. God knows he had enough to worry about....
But I agree: Jay Gatsby needs more than a redirect.
—  MusicMaker5376 16:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Time Top Ten

Hmm. It seems that someone has added a reference to every book on the top ten list at http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1578073,00.html as being "named by Time as one of the top ten books of all time." This statement isn't really accurate; the online Time article is actually about a recent book (The Top Ten) which is just a compilation of various contemporary authors' personal top ten lists. To say that Time named any of these books as the "ten greatest of all time" is basically just incorrect.

Although Modern Library named it the second greatest novel of the 20th century if someone cares to note that: http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esquilax8 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Reword it then. Create a page for the Top 10 Time Awards and voice the controversy there. --Rake 17:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you misunderstood the problem. Time Magazine never made a list of the top 10 books of all time. Time Magazine wrote a review about a book that sought to rank the books. Time actually goes so far as to say such lists are an obscenity. The way it's written now is inaccurate. The Top 10 Time Awards don't even exist, so we can't make a page about them. Read the book review in Time and I think you'll see why it was removed and why I'm removing it again. --JayHenry 17:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

? -- Stbalbach 14:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do any of the reverting, but I watch this page. Seems like "the stories of F. Scott Fitzgerald should be a link on F. Scott Fitzgerald and not here. And we already had a link to an e-book version of The Great Gatsby. Is there a reason one is preferable to the other? --JayHenry 15:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Horrible summary

The book summary is very unorganized and, at times, doesn't sound like it is from a NPOV. Overall, it's a pretty bad summary. Doodoobutter 02:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be scared to change it. --Adasta 10:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

i second this :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.15 (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected Article?

Why is this article protected? Which administrators would I talk to about entering new information, more specifically into the trivia section. There is some information on this book that I would like to add to this particular article.

Media Tycoon 1 04:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected. Any registered user, such as yourself, can edit it. — Walloon 05:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it won't let me because I'm new. Media Tycoon 1 05:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Because you're what? — Walloon 08:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Four days after you create your account you should be able to edit semi-protected articles. Jay Gatsby(talk) 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, please don't add to the trivia section. I understand that you're knew, but, generally speaking, trivia is frowned upon. Please don't make more of it. —  MusicMaker5376 13:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should integrate the trivia into the article? So long as it exists I see no problem with adding to it. Media Tycoon 1 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Novel

I don't understand why the novel is presented to high-schoolers as the Great American Novel. The hints about Gatsby as a bootlegger are meaningless to teenagers born decades after Prohibition. The "Old money/New money" contrast means very little nowadays. Even the description of Tom as a college football player creates a very different image than Fitzgerald intended in the 1920s. The first-person narration is a very clumsy device requiring everybody to tell Nick their secrets: Gatsby tells him he wants to commit adultery with Daisy and even woos her in Nick's presence; Tom tells Nick about his mistress; Wolfsheim tells him he rigged the World Series; Tom and Daisy have a spat in Nick's presence, etc. The effect of the tragic finale is muted because Nick CAN'T be on the scene and has to reconstruct what happened. Can't the schools find a better example of "Good Literature"? CharlesTheBold 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This page should be used for discussion on the article for The Great Gatsby, not the subject itself. If you have referenced literary criticism to this effect to add to the article, then do it. --Csonnich 06:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Length of Novel

I removed the following section from background information, since it seems irrelevant to the rest of the section, and also lacking a little NPOV and/or references? Perhaps it should be included under a separate heading, maybe "Scope" or "Relevance," or perhaps info on Nick Carraway should be replaced under the plot summary? Csonnich 06:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Great Gatsby is a brief novel, running about 120 pages in the Scribner's paperback edition. It is one of the shortest novels to have such a major impact. And yet, within its short length, it has an epic scope typical of a much longer book. Its 120 pages are divided into nine chapters which are all brief.

1949 film

I have removed the claim that the 1949 film version was by far more faithful than the 1974 film. The only liberties the 1974 screenplay takes is adding a private dialogue scene between Gatsby and Daisy, a montage of their trysts, and a scene of them dancing alone with Gatsby wearing his soldier's uniform. The 1949 screenplay adds flashbacks to Gatsby's earlier life before the novel begins, and has Gatsby develop a last-minute self-awareness before his death. It also adds a prologue with Nick and Jordan looking back circa 1949. So, in other words, it's a matter of opinion which version is more faithful to the novel. — Walloon (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

While I hate to WP:FORUM.... Where? How? When? Did you find a copy of the '49 film? —  MusicMaker5376 02:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nick+Jordan=Gay?

How can the writer have done this exactly? Jordan is FEMALE? Any thoughts or a ref?Quatreryukami (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Nick and Jordan aren't a gay couple in the novel, obviously. In his screen adaptation, Truman Capote made Nick gay and Jordan a lesbian, but for some very good reasons, it was never filmed that way. The article states that they were both homosexual, not that they were in a relationship with each other. Does it need clarification? —  MusicMaker5376 17:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Jordan is female. That was established on first mention of her in this article. Softlavender (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

jordan is female, are you sure you read the book?or you just read the summaries? anyways..she is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.212.39.138 (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick and Jordan gay??? Where does this come from (They were having sex with each other with no same sex activity, for Christsake)? And(God)you're going to use a "source" like Truman Capote? God, please! That little, over-sized fruity lolipop would claim Santa Claus was gay because of his attire, never giving presents to grown-ups (only kids); and kept a workshop of male dwarfs, "laboring" with them year-round while neglecting Mrs. Claus. The disposition of Nick was that he was a "fish-out-of-water" with this alien New York crowd vs. his mid-western sensibilities. As for Jordan, undertand the book was written during the "Raoring Twenties", baby (the American culturally degenerate version of the German "Weimar" period, for the leisurely, internationalist "luxury liner" crowd). Jordan would be best described as your "thoughly mordern Milly"-type, that just won the vote for women, smoking in public, 1920s mini-skirts, playing golf[?] (Whoaaa, boy! Really getting into men's faces); and taking the intiative in pre-marital sex ('love 'em and leave 'em'. Just like the guys do to the girls). As the character Nick says he didn't think much of his tryst with Jordan possibly becoming serious, which sets him apart as the most mature and level-headed of the bunch. (Ever notice the similarities between the "Great Gatsby" novel and "Sophie's Choice"?) Right at this moment I wonder why the author didn't write a sequel shortly after "The Crash" (The Depression) and follow the outcome of the surviving protagonists through the early 1930s? Special:Contributions/talk) 08:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

Possible Cultural Reference?

In the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart book America: The Book, on one of the last few pages where it shows the "other works" by the Daily Show cast, one of the books shown is "The Great Gatsby, written by Jon Stewart and the Daily Show Cast, as told to F. Scott Fitzgerald."

Does this count as a cultural reference? ShyGuy32 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Two nudes

The Coer Art section includs the following unsourced line: "Cugat decided upon a gouache depicting two reclining nudes forming the irises of a pair of disembodied female eyes hovering above the bright lights of an amusement park," I have looked very closely and still cannot make out those two yellow blobs to be nude humans. Can someone vouche for the author of this statement? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

1st, new sections on talk pages go at the bottom.
2nd, the comment is sourced -- see the citation at the end of the paragraph.
3rd, perhaps you need to have your eyesight checked. Once it was pointed out to me, it was fairly obvious that the two eyes were nudes. —  MusicMaker5376 02:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Dont need to be an asshole about it. The guy was asking a simple reasonable question. Maybe you should go get your life checked.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.52.204 (talk • contribs)
Woah, let's try and stay polite here; I didn't mean for this to get personal. I still can't see the figures, but since apparently somebody can, I'm content to leave the statement as it is. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
"Get your life checked." Good one.
I wasn't trying to be rude. I'm just surprised that someone can't make out the figures. —  MusicMaker5376 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm also surprised that one couldn't make out the figures. It might help to click on the image and zoom in a bit, and make sure you're looking at the Iris. The left iris has her legs pointing slightly upward and to the left, her head is leaning forward, with her arm draped above. The right iris is in a less distinct pose, but her legs are clearly pointing more sharply upward to the right. --JayHenry (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It may be easier to see on an actual copy of the book.... —  MusicMaker5376 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, now that I've checked, it's much easier to see on the cover on the Wikipedia page. I had based my statement off the hardback copy that I own, on which the cover is smaller and rather blurry. Magnifying the picture on the Wikipedia page; I can now see the figures very clearly. Next time I'll be sure to check all available options first. Sorry for all this trouble! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Need "Major Themes and Critical Reception"

It's a shame to let the article go without a mention of the major themes and also probably of reception of the book by literary critics (especially later ones). I haven't read the book in 35 years, so I'm not the person to start such a section(s), yet I'm writing this to encourage someone with more knowledge and hopefully objectivity and conciseness, to start a section or sections on this. These two things are MUCH more important than the original "Cover art" -- which has a large section in the article. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. As it stands, it's little more than a plot summary and a few notes on where the book was written. Anyone who can add (sourced, non-original research) critical information? Kwertii (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This section is much too large and many items are unsourced. Being that trivia sections are discouraged, I think this needs to be pared down considerably.Asher196 (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Main page character summary of Nick Carraway

The main article on The Great Gatsby under the category of character summaries states that Nick Carraway is from a poor farm family. The novel actually says that "my family have been prominent, well-to-do people." This is important because Nick comes from the mid-western equivalent of old money. Of course this doesn't compare to the money in New York, but it does illustrate the wierd relationship that New Yorkers have with money.

Will someone please make this change to the main article? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteriowallace (talk • contribs) 04:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

More vandalism

Should a registered user only block be considered here? The Autumn school term seems to have unleashed a fair amount of foolish vandalism to this page? Markhh (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Note: I reverted the last edit pointlessly changing the word gay to happy. But...why is the word gay in quotes here? What's the point? Markhh (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Writing and Publishing corrections

"The Fitzgeralds went to France in the spring of 1924 seeking tranquility for this work. He wrote the Great Gatsy during the summer and fall in Valescure near St. Raphael..." From "Short Stories of F. Scott Fitzgerald" (New York: Scribners, 1989)

This is different from the content in the "Writing and Publishing" section which states that Fitzgerald began writing The Great Gatsby in 1923 after The Vegetable. He was bankrupt from that play and had to write short stories to get himself out of debt. This should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.176.176 (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick being a homosexual

It is possible that Nick is gay due to the quote, "I was standing beside the bed and he was sitting up betweem the sheets, clad in his underware, with a great portfolio in his hands" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.76.90 (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME?? Sweetnorbert (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It makes some amount of sense. What other justification is there for this quote? 74.73.190.243 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that a portfolio in your hand or are you just happy to see me? GayKnowledge (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is some evidence in the novel to suggest that Nick is at leat bi-sexual. Years ago, I pointed out this particular passage to a Literature professor. He'd never noticed it before and was "horrified" when I showed it to him. Other justification is fairly minor and/or circumstantial... his planned male "roommate" at the start of the book... and the fact that he was going to be engaged, but wouldn't be "gossiped" into it sounds to me like someone who is closeted and making excuses. Also, read Nick's initial description of Tom. That's not a description that a straight man makes of another. I'm not interested enough to edit the article (or even sure that it needs to be done), but a Google search can find all sorts of discussion (pro and con) on this. Beyond hysterical bickering on message boards, there's probably something that's been written on this in a literary publication. Daveinbr (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

These themes are laid out more explicitly in an early draft of the novel that was published a few years ago, I think it was titled Trimalchio, or something like that, as the novel stands the theme disappears except for this minor incident. So I don't think it really deserves reference in this article unless someone has a strong opinion about it.Methusedalot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

Could Fitzgerald have written an explicitly homosexual character in the 1920's? Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems the confusion comes from the author's subtlety. Nick's attraction to Jordan based on her boyish masculinity could be considered partial proof of at least bi-sexuality: "I enjoyed looking at her. She was a slender, small-breasted woman with an erect carriage which she accentuated by throwing her body backward at the shoulders like a young cadet" (page 15). Also the drunken incident which includes this quote, "I was standing beside the bed and he was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear, with a great portfolio in his hands," is significant evidence. One professor I had pointed out that during the same drunken incident, while the two men were in an elevator, the operator had to ask Mr. McKee not to touch the lever: "Keep your hands off the lever," snapped the elevator boy (page 42). My professor believed this was a psychoanalytic metaphor for penis. Given the prolific references to Freudian psychology in popular culture during this time period that interpretation is a distinct possibility. The question of Nick's sexuality actually being important to the novel is obvious. Character traits and development are invariably important.

Aw, c'mon now, people; This 'gay' assertion is crazy and has gone far enough. Fitzgeald's character Nick was probably in part based on F. Scott himself. As such, if anyone can prove beyond flitty notions that HE was gay, well then...! Nick Carraway had an illict affair with Jordan knowing this was not the kind of woman you would write back home to the folks in Minnesota, much less even think on a more serious relationship. Remember people, even though this was the early 20th.-Cenruty, the world had to grapple with the truth that they were no longer in the 19th. century, though logically, social eddict and descretion did survive beyond post W.W.II! And too, with Nick's standing as being one of the upper-classes, had to maitain his respect AND a modicum of discrection regarding his peers back home. We can see Gatsby as the wants-to-be suave, though frantic social-climber, but Nick Carraway seems to be the more intruiging of all those predictable and superficial characters. You can even imagine him as a sort of young Putitan "goin' East" to sow his wild oats and slum with both the rich "Liberal" crowd, and the "Great Unwashed" of 'great satan', New York! Special:Contributions/talk) 08:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

I really disagree with the 'gay' part. The 'hand off the lever' was just rediculous. I think that if you wanted to, you could see that, but the intentions were probably not the least bit sexual. YOU ALSO HAVE TO REMIND YOURSELVES OF THE TIME PERIOD!!! There wasn't slang like that back then. Antiquated Electro (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Time period has nothing to do with phallic symbolism - think of the eponymous protagonist's death scene in Aphra Behn's Oronooko (late 17th century), with the broken cigar. I thought the scene was included to show how drunk McKee was and provide some humour; possibly there is some innuendo there, but I think there are better hints at Nick's sexuality later in the book. I hope someone will discuss the parting scene between Jordan and Nick. She says something about his being a bad driver (not good in bed? - lever not rising?!) and he says he was half in love with her, which is highly ambiguous (bisexual?), as well as saying that he can't lie to himself at 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.32.30 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Another cowardly "unsigned" idiot whose two "heads" are obviously not accquainted with each other! FritzGerald, it can be assertained had no great insight into the changing social events of his times. I can safely say that any high school kid can soberly come to same conclusion. I realized this in middle-school when this pedestrian garbage was shoved down our throats rather than studying true classic literature. To try to read anything more deep than what this depressed, often drunken fool wrote is to make oneself look clownish in the eyes of middle-school kids. In other words their inept teachers!!! --64.134.99.253 (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

My original post is unsigned, but I don't consider that to be cowardly in itself. I also don't think it is appropriate to call me an idiot for my comment; I was merely trying to initiate a discussion about one of the novel's most ambiguous aspects.

Regarding your use of "assertained": is this a portmanteau word that combines "ascertained" and "asserted"? I should point out that anything about a writer and their work can be asserted (or, indeed, maintained), although it can also be refuted.

What exactly would you class as "true classic literature" if you consider Gatsby pedestrian? One wonders what you'd make of James Joyce's Ulysses, Marcel Proust's In Search of Lost Time, Henry James' The Golden Bowl, etc. My advice to you is, give Andy McNab's Bravo Two Zero a try.

Regading Jordan's "boyish" figure as evidence of a gay or bi tendency: wasn't such a figure associated with the "flapper" of the times, and hence, something most straight men would admire? Wschart (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article discussion

{{fac}} I was thinking of nominating this article to be featured, and I think it meets all the standards-no broken links, good plot summary and backround, etc. What do you guys think?Saberwolf116 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not transclude the FAC template on an article's talk page that has not yet been nominated, thanks. Gary King (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gary, the article was nominated. It's already been withdrawn here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Great Gatsby. --JayHenry (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah okay, I noticed that a bit late. In any case, what I really meant to say was to not include the template in a discussion thread but rather at the top of the article's talk page :) Gary King (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
If I understand User:Maralia's instructions correctly we have to leave the template on the page so GimmeBot can archive it correctly. I've put the FAC template up top, with the understanding it will soon be archived. --JayHenry (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep that's the way it should be. Gary King (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Influence Section

If influence doesn't exist, isn't it ironic that the section is getting re-added? The section basically calls itself irrelevant, which I believe is correct. It's like having a section on authors who didn't write this book or storylines that didn't occur. Law shoot! 05:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't understand why Norbert insists on re-adding a fact that disclaims its own irrelevance to the subject at hand. The content being reinserted is also malformed and misspelled. --JayHenry (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, i had previously thought you were trying to withelfd information from the readers of wikipedia, but in the end i can truly see who the real monster is Sweetnorbert (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That's not a problem Norbert. I can certainly understand how users feel like some editors censor information. Nobody is a monster here, and nobody got hurt :) Law shoot! 06:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Wrong again, i'm afraid Sweetnorbert (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

simple:Talk:The Great Gatsby

Nick's conclusion

The plot summary currently says that Nick Carraway concludes at the end of the story "that the American dream has been corrupted by the sole, empty pursuit of money." Is that Nick's conclusion? I disagree; it's certainly debatable that is what Nick means. Read the ending. I think it is about the hopelessness of trying to recapture the virginal past. — Walloon (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"THE BUSINESS OF AMERICA IS BUSINESS", as one of the Founding Fathers stated. The pursuit of money\wealth has always been the goal that defines "Happiness" in the Declaration. What f Fitz Gerald, Wolf, Upton Sinclair and all those other post W.W I chroniclers failed to realize is that America never developed an ASTHETIC CULTURE to inform its population of the spiritual and political upheavals and declines. And this was a nation that attracted arguably the most under-served and repressed European talent by the tens of millions! This is to say nothing of why was it that Europe itself slid through TWO suicidal wars that almost obliterated that branch of Western civilization These medicore writers couldn't even begin to properly frame the question, much less proergate an answer. Special:Contributions/talk) 09:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

Major symbols (homework help)

As discussed above, sections such as "Major symbols" shouldn't be in the article. I moved the section to talk below... note the two references, "Homework Online, Inc" and "Sparknotes LLC"......

Major symbols

  • West Egg - New money, New Aristocracy.[citation needed]
  • East Egg - Old money, Old Aristocracy.[citation needed]
  • Valley of ashes - The downfall of the American dream.[citation needed]
  • Dr. T. J. Eckleburg's eyes - The character Wilson believes they symbolise God's eyes watching over everyone, only for Michaelis to assure him, "That's an advert." [1]
  • The green light - Gatsby's hopes and dreams of Daisy being part of his future, as Gatsby often watches the green light that "glows all night at the end of [her] dock". More generally, the American Dream.[2][3]
refs:
  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ Symbolism: The Green Light, Homework Online, Inc, 2009, retrieved 2009-04-09
  3. ^ The Great Gatsby: Themes, Motifs & Symbols, SparkNotes LLC, 2009, retrieved 2009-04-09
How are Sparks Notes not a reliable source? They're a textbook example of a secondary source on literary interpretation - summing up the major viewpoints of primary source criticism into a description of the general critical consensus on a work. 24.151.11.122 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

-M.Nelson (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wolfshiem vs Wolfsheim

My edition shows the name spelled with the 'i' before the 'e'. I am sure that the more usual spelling for such a name would indeed be the latter, but is there any indication that Fitzgerald spelled it in the latter fashion or inconsistently?--Jrm2007 (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Funnily enough, I just had a discussion about this in class. It seems that originally it was written as Wolfshiem in the earliest editions, and over time editors have "fixed" it to Wolfsheim. Apparently there are numerous spelling mistakes in earlier editions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.181.125 (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In many books from the pre-computer era, mispellings and typos can be found. But as you say, it seems simply that this was the intended spelling. Does it have significance beyond perhaps that FSF did not know German?--Jrm2007 (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Error in second paragraph?

71.117.254.175 (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Someone Help

The second paragraph has a link to World War II in refrence to the Jazz Age. This should be World War I. I do not know how to fix this. Anyone agree? Thanks.

Extensive Vandelism

I reverted the entire article, back to its October 15 version due to an extensive vandalism job that was getting repaired piecemeal. I checked to make sure no legitimate edits occurred on the 16th, but did not find any. Perhaps, a regular editor of this article should double check, the article's current state. Aepryus (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's that time of the year, again. Semi-protect, perhaps? — MusicMaker5376 02:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Music Section/ Will Thwaites

I removed the music section as it only referred to a "2009 release" by an artist known as Will Thwaites. Sorry dude but this entry does not appear to satisfy the notoriety requirements of Wikipedia. There is specific guidance online for musicians about self-promotion via wikipedia and the kinds of threshold in terms of record sales and significance of label you would need to surpass to warrant mention (basically you can't just populate pages with tenuous references to your unsigned band or your single that only shifted 100 copies- believe me, I used to try and get away with it all the time myself and its fair enough that nobody ever let me: this just isn't the right place to promote your work). I've added this note to the discussion page just on the off chance that I'm way off the mark and this is a well-known song and to give the guy a chance to challenge my edit. Silverwood (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Roaring Twenties

The article starts talking about the Roaring Twenties and unprecedented levels of prosperity. Wrong. The 20s roared later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.105.177 (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Word Error

Resolved

Upon reading the Historical Content, I came upon a word which I've never seen or heard before, and I Googled it, but nothing came up. Does anyone know this word if it exists and its meaning?

"teyrtyrtyboohese" under Historical Content

Michele Haro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.206.101 (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It was recent typical non-sense vandalism. It has been reverted. Don't forget, you too can edit Wikipedia and correct such errors. It's easy to do. Please see Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing for details. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

George is not told that Gatsby killed Myrtle

In the book, George is never told that Gatsby killed Myrtle although editors occasionally put this in the article. I carefully read looking for this when I was doing my editing related to the GA review. If memory serves, George just sort of figures it out in his wanderings. In particular, Tom does not tell George that Gatsby killed her. In the 2013 movie, I think Tom did. I can't recall for the 1974 movie. Anyway, we should be vigilant that this mistake does not creep into the article, as it could severely impact the story and, in particular, Tom. If it is me, however, that is in error, please explain why using exact passages from the novel. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Supporting that: In the 1974 movie you don't get to hear what Tom speaks with George when they meet after the accident. Later Tom explains Nick that he told George who's the car owner. I just watched it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.5.182.194 (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Great Gatsby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Great Gatsby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016

please say "Gatsby was in the internet is distract ooh look a kitten 99.41.81.181 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this appears to be a joke, which is unsuitable for inclusion in the article. /wiae ★ /tlk 00:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2016

The line about Wilson, "When he learns of the death of his wife, he shoots and kills Gatsby", is not strictly accurate, the ending is purposefully ambiguous. There is an alternate school of thought that Meyer killed Gatsby, or another character did so. It is impossible to say definitively that it was Wilson 86.137.206.209 (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Dane2007 talk 06:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Dane2007 consensus is only required before "changes that are likely to be controversial". Changing these words is a part of writing down the plot, it is not our job to make assumptions. As this change reflects the plot of the book it is uncontroversial. Thank you. 109.149.222.224 (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Done I replaced the objectivity in the sentence with this change. Please ping me if there are further objections. JustBerry (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2016

Ann Mao (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DonIago (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

How come only Gatsby has a separate page?

I never understood that apart from the pages a few years ago not having references and not meeting the notability standards at that point, but I think Daisy could have one since I've found a number of articles discussing her individually. This article. This book. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is compared to Daisy, though the comparison is debunked here, in this article. Informant16 12 September 2015

Road to Featured Article status

Hi, everybody. Now that we have achieved good article status (and made improvements since), it's time to focus on moving forward and try to make this become a Wikipedia:Featured article. The biggest defect, I think, is the over-reliance on Mizener's "Gatsby, 35 Years Later" article. There's currently 20 references to it! If it weren't for that, I'd feel comfortable submitting it for FA review even now. To pass the feature article criteria (please read), I think we should massage in substitutes for at least 10 of those references. So let's make that the primary goal. There may be another minor issues with the referencing style because of the dozen or so short inline references. We may have to get rid of the Bibliography by making them individual inline references. I'll take care of this either before or after FA review. There's only about a dozen refs to change if need be. FA review is far more stringent than GA review so we need to pepper the article with as many more high-quality refs as we can find. There's a few ideas in the talk page archives that could be used to make the article better, so if you want to help, consider reading those. The Historical context section may be low-hanging fruit for expansion. All in all though, I think this article is 95% of the way there. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary is loose plagiarism

So, look at this plot summary: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/gatsby/summary.html

And look at the one in the article. Kinda similar, right? A bit too much, I believe. What can/ought to be done? 98.71.51.89 (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the Wikipedia article is plagiarism or Sparknotes? Jason Quinn (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems much more probable that wiki would be doing the plagiarizing. But I don't know for sure. 98.71.49.61 (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I only now got around to reading the actual summary you linked. I missed your reply for whatever reason and kind of forgot about this thread. I do not see any similarity there that could be deemed plagiarism. You would have to elaborate much more. I suspected that you were suggesting the Wiki did but I wasn't sure. I wrote much of the current wording of the plot summary and I know I didn't plagiarize. In light of that, I wanted confirmation that you thought Sparknotes was the offending party before proceeding. As I do not see any substantial similarity, I consider it a non-issue. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Ha, I was the IP that posted about this years ago and for some reason I just though of it. There are still some strong similarities between this and the spakrnotes article, though less than I remembered, especially in the beginning. If you wrote most of it yourself, then I guess sparknotes is plagiarizing which is embarrassing to say the least.
For example, the start of the second paragraph of the Plot summary on wiki:
"As the summer progresses, Nick eventually receives an invitation to one of Gatsby's parties. Nick encounters Jordan Baker at the party, and they meet Gatsby himself, an aloof and surprisingly young man who recognizes Nick from their same division in World War I. Through Jordan, Nick later learns that Gatsby knew Daisy from a romantic encounter in 1917 and is deeply in love with her. He spends many nights staring at the green light at the end of her dock, across the bay from his mansion, hoping to one day rekindle their lost romance. Gatsby's extravagant lifestyle and wild parties are an attempt to impress Daisy in the hope that she will one day appear again at Gatsby's doorstep. Gatsby now wants Nick to arrange a reunion between himself and Daisy. Nick invites Daisy to have tea at his house, without telling her that Gatsby will also be there. After an initially awkward reunion, Gatsby and Daisy reestablish their connection. They begin an affair..."
Sparknotes, third paragraph:
"As the summer progresses, Nick eventually garners an invitation to one of Gatsby’s legendary parties. He encounters Jordan Baker at the party, and they meet Gatsby himself, a surprisingly young man who affects an English accent, has a remarkable smile, and calls everyone “old sport.” Gatsby asks to speak to Jordan alone, and, through Jordan, Nick later learns more about his mysterious neighbor. Gatsby tells Jordan that he knew Daisy in Louisville in 1917 and is deeply in love with her. He spends many nights staring at the green light at the end of her dock, across the bay from his mansion. Gatsby’s extravagant lifestyle and wild parties are simply an attempt to impress Daisy. Gatsby now wants Nick to arrange a reunion between himself and Daisy, but he is afraid that Daisy will refuse to see him if she knows that he still loves her. Nick invites Daisy to have tea at his house, without telling her that Gatsby will also be there. After an initially awkward reunion, Gatsby and Daisy reestablish their connection. Their love rekindled, they begin an affair."
The beginning and ending portions especially are highly suspicious. I haven't had time to read through the rest, but I think this is sufficient evidence that some sort of funny business is going on. Brightnsalty (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Brightnsalty. This may be one of the slowest evolving conversations in history but (again) I only now noticed your reply and with your follow-up. Given your specific concerns, I now believe there may be some funny business going on. The text in question appears to have originated on 12 May 2013 with this edit by editor Saginaw-hitchhiker and it was tweaked only 10 hours later by this edit by editor Wolfdog. The Sparknotes text matches the earlier edit by Saginaw-hitchhiker: Sparksnotes uses the word "legendary" to describe the parties, a word which was removed by Wolfdog, and Sparknotes does not use the word "aloof" to describe Gatsby, which was added by Wolfdog. It appears there are two likely possibilities: A) Saginaw-hitchhiker copy-n-pasted a large block of text from Sparknotes, or B) somebody at Sparknotes copy-n-pasted from Wikipedia in a narrow 10 hour window. We need to get Saginaw-hitchhiker to confirm that his/her edits are original or to admit to plagiarism. I will bring this to the editor's attention. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

haha cool. Interested to see what happens. Brightnsalty (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

wow. impressive it took you this long! that's right! i've been plagiarizing for years!
kidding. evidently, i definitely took from sparknotes. i have little recollection of editing this article besides updating its lead section, and looking back, it appears i added critical reviews too. still, what i did was not right. i think i assumed sparknotes was user-submitted just as wikipedia is, but still, wrong nonetheless. thanks for bringing this to my attention. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, this is bad. I've just tagged this for Good Article reassessment, and will surely be delisted. I'm going to tag the Plot section as a copyright violation. Six and a half years of edits may have to be revision deleted. Saginaw-hitchhiker, it would help if you identify any and all text that may be copyright violations here. (And if you've done it for other articles, you ought to fix it there too.) I don't have the time to fix all this right now and I'm getting sick so I may be down-and-out for a while. Help by any and all would be good. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
when this was brought to my attention i was shocked -- i'm no serial infringer. still, the error was made, and i'll take a look at my history and review my work. my history with editing this page was brief. all i remember doing was editing the lead and critical reviews, which is why the summary copy/paste came as a surprise. i doubt you'll find any further errors in this article, but i'll do my best to identify if mistakes were made. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay. But how to proceed here? All text derived from the original Sparknotes text is a derivative work and therefore also a copyright violation. There's well over a thousand edits to the article since. I don't think anyone wants to go through and figure out what text is kosher and what isn't. Maybe the entire Plot summary section should simply be rewritten? Jason Quinn (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll make an attempt at rewriting the Plot Summary section this weekend. (Update: Rewrite submitted.) -- Flask (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Big ups, Flask! Thanks for doing some of the hard pulling here. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Wolfshiem/Wolfsheim

Hmm ... well I edited Wolfshiem to what seems to be the correct (and, based on Googling, the more accepted) spelling of "Wolfsheim", then saw the note on Fitzgerald's original manuscript. To me it feels like Fitzgerald screwed up the spelling and it got corrected, but also feel free to revert that edit. -Kieran (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

funeral for Gatsby

user:Doniago ("not sure this is an improvement; grammar and WP:TONE issues")
I corrected an false statement, if you want to optimize grammar feel free to improve the article. Any other opinions about the three attendees of the funeral? --Angerdan (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If you were trying to WP:PING me, that's not how you ideally do it. Just an FYI.
If you'd like to clean up your original revision so that it has proper grammar and adheres to WP:TONE, I'm happy to reevaluate. Or if you need help doing so, you can post what you'd like to add here and I'll let you know what I think. DonIago (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Analysis of IP edits

Here's a quick analysis of the IP edits since the last page protection expired on 9 August 2013.

Basically I sorted the IP edits into three groups. The first is for "vandalism OR malicious OR bad edits", the second is for "Helpful edits OR neutral but well-intended OR Unhelpful but good faith edits", and the third is for edits that are puzzling or too ambiguous to judge. If an IP edited multiple times, I considered this only one incident and listed the number of subseqeuent edits by the IP. (People either tend to do all helpful stuff or all vandalism so that simplifies matters a bit.)

It ended up there were 12 in the first group, 15 in the second, and none in the third. Of course, some of the edits were difficult to gauge and I had to make a judgment call (also some can only be judged in context of the surrounding edits). I don't claim my snap judgment to be perfect but here is my breakdown:

vandalism OR malicious OR bad edits

[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] + 2 more, [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] + 1 more

Helpful edits OR neutral but well-intended OR Unhelpful but good faith edits

[15], [16], [17], [18], [19] + 1 more, [20] + 6 more, [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]

Unsure

(empty)

At first glance, it appears that the IP edits are helpfully contributing to the article. And, for a brief moment after the page was unprotected, they did. But most of the later IP edits have been of clear vandalism or of minimal or revertible value. Most of the even the non-vandal edits fall into the "neutral but well-intended" or "unhelpful but good faith edits" sub-categories, with only a few being bona-fide "helpful" edits.

The main questions I have are, "Are the IP edits doing more good or more harm to the article?" and "Does the page need semi-protection?" My overall opinion is the helpful IP edits have contributed little to the article's quality and the vandalism rate is significant. The page watchers have done a great job in reverting vandalism though. HOWEVER, This article happens to be one of the very highest traffic articles on Wikipedia however so perhaps taking that into account suggests the vandalism rate isn't so bad after all. It's a very close call according to our criteria for indefinite semi-protection but I don't think the page warrants semi-indefinite protection at this time. We are definitely above the 5% typical vandalism rate but slightly below a 50% threshold. That "threshold" from the criteria page is only a suggestion, however, and, as I explained, there may be extenuating circumstances for this article that make a higher rate acceptable.

Any other watchers care to comment? Do you think there's a need for indefinite semi-protection? Jason Quinn (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Great_Gatsby/Archive_1&oldid=1142779916"