"The Great Gatsby" and literature in general

[Rome96]

I'm close to the end of "The Great Gatsby" and I just cannot see what's so special about it. It's beautifully written but the plot just seems shallow and pretentious, not a lot happens and the things that do happen seem like they're being made out to be more profound than they really are. What was your impression of this book? To me it seems like a less interesting version of the tv show "Mad Men". Am I just not intelligent enough to get it? I haven't gotten to the end yet, so if it does get better I'd like to know.

I've been trying to read a lot of classics but a lot of them just don't draw me in, the things that were controversial back then are normal today, and if it's not controversial, is it worth reading? I liked "To Kill a Mockingbird", "Lord of the Flies" and "Catcher in the Rye" but many other classics like "Robinson Crusoe" or "Portrait of Dorian Gray" were both boring and didn't offer anything new to the table (at least from my modern perspective).I do like witty books but "Portrait of Dorian Gray" was such a huge disappointment, people kept going on about how witty it is but in my opinion it wouldn't have been surprising if a 12-year old had written it.

What is your favorite book? It can be any genre and time (even non-fiction), just a book that completely changed your perspective on things and inspired you. Are the classics even worth reading? Surely there has to be some reason that they've survived for so long.. I've read a lot of interesting books during my 17 years on this earth but I haven't found "the one" yet.

 

[SpaceYeti]

No, classics just aren't that entertaining. It's not you, it's them. Though, I've been having trouble getting into books in general, lately. I prefer just making my own stories or watching Adventure Time.

 

[Rome96]

No, classics just aren't that entertaining. It's not you, it's them. Though, I've been having trouble getting into books in general, lately. I prefer just making my own stories or watching Adventure Time.

Yeah, I figured as much. I should probably stop reading classics and fiction in general and move over to non-fiction. Maybe I've become more critical of the literature I read now but I just can't seem to get into fiction the way I used to when I was a kid. It's VERY hard to find good fiction. Any good tips?

 

[Brontosaurie]

the best writers are charles bukowski, friedrich nietzsche and james joyce.

john fowles is also good. try his book "the magus".

 

[Duxwing]

The Thirteen And A Half Lives of Captain Bluebear, by Walter Moers finally gave me a protagonist with whom I could identify. Explaining the feeling and effect is difficult, but seeing his life from the outside allowed me to better understand myself: my aspirations, my pastimes--even my taste in women. I've read it cover to cover five times, and I am now on my sixth reading. Each time, I've noticed new parts of the book. I wish that I could put this feeling into terse words, but, alas, I feel as though I would need to write an entire book.

-Duxwing

 

[ShameFace]

its not you. These 'classics' are just really dated.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Personal fav:

 

[nightstreaking]

...a book that completely changed your perspective on things and inspired you.

Zorba the Greek by Nikos Kazantzakis.

I love Oscar Wilde, but you're right... Dorian Gray was disappointing. The Great Gatsby is supposed to represent an era (and yeah, it actually kind of sucks).

I think what you're looking for are books that offer new ideas. Classics don't do that. Do you like science or philosophy? Those two fields can give you lots of things to think about, and there are numerous books pertaining to them.

If you'd like a change in perspective but still want to stick to fiction, you may want to read Jorge Luis Borges, Fernando Pessoa, people like Dave Eggers... I second Bukowski, Nietzsche and James Joyce.

Science fiction! The Foundation series is awesome.

 

[ShameFace]

I second Bukowski, Nietzsche and James Joyce.

agree. I also like William Burroughs.

 

[Rome96]

Just started reading Charles Bukowski's "Woman" and it seems like he was drunk throughout the entire writing process, his style is similar to Hemingways, but more vulgar. I have no problem with the vulgarity but the constant starting and stopping is bothering me a bit. Seems a bit incoherent so far. :/

 

[SpaceYeti]

Yeah, I figured as much. I should probably stop reading classics and fiction in general and move over to non-fiction. Maybe I've become more critical of the literature I read now but I just can't seem to get into fiction the way I used to when I was a kid. It's VERY hard to find good fiction. Any good tips?

Starship Troopers.

 

[Cavallier]

If good mind bending lit that's classic but not too historical or "boring" is more your flavor I'd go with anything by Philip K. Dick, anything by Vernor Vinge, Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game, and maybe the first few Dune novels. Starship Troopers is really good and nothing like the movies. I find some of my favorite classic lit is also science fiction but not the fluffy mind numbing sort.

If you are looking for classic lit that's not science fiction I recommend Leaves of Grass, Brave New World, and Left Hand of Darkness.

Then again I really like all the stuff you mentioned hating. I'm an unrepentant bibliophile who has never read a book I didn't like...except for anything by Faulkner. I wish he had died in a fire at age 12 before he could curse us with his self-aggrandizing slop people call literature.

 

[Puffy]

^ lol, As I Lay Dying wasn't that bad.

I find with prose I either love it or hate it. Just because something's considered a classic doesn't mean it will turn you on. I can see the brilliance in Joyce, and even how learning his techniques might be useful to me, but I still can't get into it; maybe one day, right now it's way too much for me to handle.

If Cavallier wants to push Faulkner into the fire, I wouldn't mind chucking Beckett in there too.

(metaphorically, book-burning on an INTP forum would be the worst travesty. )

That said, I do think it's worth aiming for challenging material. It depends on your purposes, obviously, but in general I feel if I find a book too easy I'm doing it wrong.

William S. Burroughs, Ballard & Robert Anton Wilson are current favourites. ^_^

 

[Nezaros]

Just because a book is called "classic literature" doesn't automatically make it good, or worth reading. Plenty of people say The Catcher in the Rye was a great book but I swear I wanted to burn my copy a quarter of the way through. I've read books by Oscar Wilde and Voltaire and other "classics" and loved them, but because I found them enjoyable, not because they're classics. It's really all just personal preference. The consensus can suck it.

 

[Cavallier]

^ lol, As I Lay Dying wasn't that bad.

I find with prose I either love it or hate it. Just because something's considered a classic doesn't mean it will turn you on. I can see the brilliance in Joyce, and even how learning his techniques might be useful to me, but I still can't get into it; maybe one day, right now it's way too much for me to handle.

If Cavallier wants to push Faulkner into the fire, I wouldn't mind chucking Beckett in there too.

(metaphorically, book-burning on an INTP forum would be the worst travesty. )

That said, I do think it's worth aiming for challenging material. It depends on your purposes, obviously, but in general I feel if I find a book too easy I'm doing it wrong.

Okay, you caught me. I do actually really enjoy on an intellectual level the style and framing of As I Lay Dying. I will never forget reading the passage where the little boy drills air holes into the coffin and accidentally drills holes into his mother's face. I just also know my history and I'm certain Faulkner has managed to pull the biggest literary con of all time. The man was a crook and a bastard. True, I could never bring myself to burn a book but I am willing to consider renting a Time Tuner and committing retroactive authorcide.

 

[Duxwing]

^ lol, As I Lay Dying wasn't that bad.

I find with prose I either love it or hate it. Just because something's considered a classic doesn't mean it will turn you on. I can see the brilliance in Joyce, and even how learning his techniques might be useful to me, but I still can't get into it; maybe one day, right now it's way too much for me to handle.

If Cavallier wants to push Faulkner into the fire, I wouldn't mind chucking Beckett in there too.

(metaphorically, book-burning on an INTP forum would be the worst travesty. )

That said, I do think it's worth aiming for challenging material. It depends on your purposes, obviously, but in general I feel if I find a book too easy I'm doing it wrong.

William S. Burroughs, Ballard & Robert Anton Wilson are current favourites. ^_^

Oh no! Not Beckett! If he were gone, then "Rien a faire".

-Duxwing

 

[ShameFace]

Just started reading Charles Bukowski's "Woman" and it seems like he was drunk throughout the entire writing process, his style is similar to Hemingways, but more vulgar. I have no problem with the vulgarity but the constant starting and stopping is bothering me a bit. Seems a bit incoherent so far. :/

all the best writers were drunks or were high on opjates. Vulgar? Dont use such a weird if you're a male. However if you're a 70 year old church lady like my mom, then its appropriate. Post Office is probably a better novel though.Factotum is second best.

 

[Absurdity]

Gatsby sucks. Like you mentioned, Fitzgerald's got some good prose, but it is impossible to care about what happens to any of his stupid characters so the book flops. It's only been celebrated because of how culturally relevant it was to the era it captured.


McCarthy's Blood Meridian is the best book I've ever read.

 

[Cavallier]

I keep going back to Conrad's Heart of Darkness. So dark and twisted. It highlights an inherent sickness of society on a level that is timeless.

I liked how utterly vapid all of the characters in Gatsby are. It's not unlike watching any evening tv drama you can think of. It's a bunch of well enough off shallow idiots playing at being adults. Every little thing is the end of the world. They are complete slaves to their desires. None of them make any effort to actually grow and in the end their self centeredness ruins their lives. A bit of a cautionary tale.

I like that Nick tells you he's not the judgmental sort and then proceeds on to be critical of every person he meets. I actually love that as the narrator, our eye into the world, he is the person we are forced to trust to give us just the facts and yet he is so flawed as a person. We as the objective reader see how completely blind he is to his own shortcomings and yet he arrogantly and blithely describes cheating and abusive husbands/wives and murders.

If the book is interesting, gives me a new perspective, makes plot twists I don't expect, or even just manages to make me feel something then I call it a good book. I see and respect why someone doesn't "like" Gatsby but "liking" never factored into it for me.

I guess that's why I made a good Literature major.

 

[Wolf18]

In general, I've found that most "classic" books are just authors trying to make rich people sympathetic, and it doesn't work (The Portrait of Dorian Grey, Jane Eyre, The Catcher in the Rye...)

So, here are some classic books that don't do that (mostly sci-fi):
Starship Troopers, A Wizard of Earthsea, Life of Pi, The Hound of the Baskervilles, Treasure Island, The Red Pony, The Martian Chronicles, Ender's Game, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, anything by Larry Niven

And here are some that do but are still very good:
Dune and The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings. I enjoyed The Great Gatsby, but the period fascinates me. The plot didn't.

SW

 

[Puffy]

If the book is interesting, gives me a new perspective, makes plot twists I don't expect, or even just manages to make me feel something then I call it a good book. I see and respect why someone doesn't "like" Gatsby but "liking" never factored into it for me.

I guess that's why I made a good Literature major.

Haha, good students come in all sorts I guess.

I'm actually horribly self-centered when it comes to reading. Most of the books we did in my literature major I didn't even finish. If nothing strikes me in the first 20 pages I just find it unbearable to read and will procrastinate so much that I may as well read something that I actually want to read (and there's always 20+ things on my list that I want to read.)

I haven't had less than a distinction on any essay I've done in the last three years though. I'm a bad student in the sense of someone to teach, and a good one in terms of original contribution; I always read/write what I want to, and so what relates to my own unique vision.

I'm unsure whether this might be a part of what distinguishes Ni - Ni seems a lot more self-centered in terms of the source of its intellect...

edit: simultaneously it might be that I'm not fussed about prose. I think your criteria is the same one I rate films and comics by. And I read/ watch a lot of comics and films, of many different varieties...

 

[Vict]

It's beautifully written but the plot just seems shallow and pretentious, not a lot happens and the things that do happen seem like they're being made out to be more profound than they really are.

As in literature, as in life.