Not
every book has to be a great sprawling thousand-page lump of printed paper – on
the contrary, many of the best works of writing are short things that can
easily be read in a couple of days. The
Great Gatsby is one of them, and I’m going to have to say that I come out
fully in favour of this thin slip of a novel, not least because I could easily
send it somewhere in the post. This classic tale of romance, scheming and
decadence amongst the 1920s New York aristocracy, contained in something that
is only barely long enough to be considered a proper novel. What’s not to love?
The
book itself is just under a century old, and from what I understand it’s a
compulsory part of most English Literature reading-lists; I on the other hand
never did any of that, and so have arrived at the thing relatively fresh. I
won’t be doing any literary discussion stuff, as I think reading too much into
any piece of art tends to overcomplicate and completely spoil it. No, I’ll just
be sticking to the question of whether it’s actually any good to read.
The
answer is ‘yes’, by the way, just so you know.
Like
I said before, it’s really short – something you can get through in a weekend
or less, but certainly feels substantial enough to provoke thought and feeling.
The story is told by some narrator whose name I can barely remember, as he
tells of his experiences when he moved next door to the mansion of Jay Gatsby,
an aloof figure who is legendary for holding grand, drunken parties every week.
As the narrator becomes friends with Gatsby, we discover the plot to essentially
be a classic love-triangle: Gatsby’s in love with the narrator’s distant cousin
Daisy, an old flame of his who has since married a total dick-head called Tom
Buchanan. There are a few other plot points at play, and alongside Gatsby’s
single-minded obsession with regaining the affections of Daisy are things such
as: Tom’s affair with a mistress, the narrator’s half-hearted quest to
uncovering the truth about Gatsby’s past, and the narrator’s budding romance
with a friend of Daisy’s, called Jordan Baker.
There’s
a fair bit going on, but at no point was I left confused about what was going
on. The reason this book is worth reading is because F. Scott Fitzgerald is
really a very good writer. There’s no unnecessary frippery to get in the way of
the pacing of the story, yet at no point does it feel too short, or
underwritten. Each of the characters are complex and well developed, making
remembering them and their part in the story no real obstacle. We’re never left
in any doubt whether it’s Gatsby talking, or Tom, or Daisy, or even Jordan
Baker; each has their own character and role within the story. The narrator
himself (whom I cannot call the protagonist, because clearly Gatsby is the
protagonist; the other guy just tells the story whilst playing a passive side-role
in the narrative) is a good, well fleshed out character with a personality
distinct from any of the other people in the book. Even the minor unnamed
person referred to as ‘the owl-eyed man’, a drunken patron of Gatsby parties
who makes a small appearance towards the end of the book, is also a brilliant
and memorable feature of The Great
Gatsby, worthy of praise for his contributions to the overall plot, pacing
and feel of the story. He's definately one of my absolute favourite characters of all time, is 'the owl-eyed man'.
The
locations and situations in the book are equally worthy of praise. Despite the
low word-count, this novel never fails to build a picture in the reader’s head
of the places we visit or whatever is going on. The parties at Gatsby’s mansion
show us the lows to which the disgustingly wealthy end up, enacting one of the
most truly deplorable drink-driving incidents ever written about, but
nevertheless there does seem to be something appealing about the whole thing. It’s
small wonder that so many people turn up at the place; after all, most people
love a good, drunken rave. Also, while the hob-nobbing of the interwar New York
aristocracy might not seem like the most thrilling setting or subject for a
novel, let’s not forget that this was kind of Fitzgerald’s speciality, and his
writing makes even this seem alive and interesting to us readers a century
later. The characters of Gatsby and ‘the owl-eyed man’ are leagues better than
anyone found in a Dan Brown or James Herbert novel, and I was more interested
to found out about Gatsby’s past and whether his attempts to reconnect with
Daisy worked out than I was to finally find out whatever the hell was going on
in any Alistair Maclean action-thriller.
In
conclusion The Great Gatsby is
perfect, and there’s no excuse for you not to have read it. If you read it at
school and hated it (as English Literature classes tended to affect my own feelings
towards books, in case I haven’t been clear), then give it another chance and
read it afresh, as you might be surprised. And if you haven’t read it yet, then
this is an oversight that can easily be corrected. After all, as I’ve said throughout this little
review, it’s short enough and easy enough to read very quickly – for it ain’t
no Heart of Darkness, which was about
the same length but nowhere near as accessible to the reader. No, this one is
actually designed to be read by actual people.
One
last point to mention; I have not watched any film adaptation of this book, and
certainly not the recent one with Leonardo DiCaprio. The mark of a perfect book
is that it is genuinely impossible to make a better film adaptation, and I do
not believe that anyone could make a film that better captures the story or the
themes than Fitzgerald has done with this own book. It just can’t be done. So
what’s the point in wasting money and time on an inferior adaptation, when the
book is so good, and so near-effortless to read and appreciate? Go on, read the
book. And if you’ve read it, then there’s no actual point in watching any
movies about it.
Bibliography
– ‘cause, I remembered to do one this time
Fitzgerald,
F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. Penguin
Group: St. Ives. (1994 this version, though it was first published in 1926, as it happens)
No comments:
Post a Comment