First off, I hold to my statement made in the previous blog post that this book is still by far one of the best that I have ever read. One simply cannot deny the perfection of Fitzgerald's prose. This being said, the last couple of chapters did not disappoint.
The story climaxes in the death of Gatsby after he has had his heart broken by his long time lover, Daisy. The most moving scene comes from Nick's description of what must have happened as Gatsby approached his pool:
"If that was true he must have felt that he had lost the old warm world, paid a high price for living too long with a single dream. He must have looked up at an unfamiliar sky through frightening leaves and shivered as he found what a grotesque thing a rose is and how raw the sunlight was upon the scarcely created grass. A new world, material without being real, where poor ghosts, breathing dreams like air, drifted fortuitously about...like that ashen, fantastic figure gliding toward him through the amorphous trees."
This scene describes how Gatsby's world falls in on him as he sees that everything that his life had revolved around for four years has been for nought. While sad, this scene also alludes to the greater point that Fitzgerald was trying to make in this novel; that is how shallow the lives of this society really are. He describes this scene especially through the character of Gatsby, because as Nick explained in the first pages of the book, "Only Gatsby, the man who gives his name to this book, was exempt from my reaction--Gatsby who represented everything for which I have an unaffected scorn."
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, initial thoughts
This masterpiece, by Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald, is by far one of the best novels that I have ever read. From the first page, Fitzgerald's beautiful prose shows itself in full colors. His style is simply amazing and I could name multiple lines that caught my attention for their unique beauty.
Some things that especially caught my eye right off the bat is his insistent use of colors in describing almost everything there is to describe in the novel. For example: he uses yellow to describe Gatsby's car, Dr. T. J. Eckleburg's glasses, the women's dresses, hair of Daisy's child and the light among other things; he uses pink to describe the light in Daisy's room and Gatsby's suit among other things; he uses both black and white in a lot of descriptions and in Tom's racism; he uses green to describe the light from Daisy's dock as viewed by Gatsby and to describe the cars of Mr. Wilson and Tom, among many other things; he uses blue to describe Tom's coupe as well as Dr. T. J. Eckleburg's enormous retinas; finally, he uses grey to describe the region between "West Egg" and Queens along with describing all of the ash that is another important motif in the area. All of these motifs of color, ash and especially the billboard of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg bother me because I have absolutely no inkling as to their importance, if there exists any.
Finally, something that I have been thinking about is what Fitzgerald's inspiration was to create what he did. First, I thought that Fitzgerald's life was that of Nicks, then that of Toms, then that of Gatsby's; but, I recently came to the conclusion that all three have been influenced by bits and pieces of Fitzgerald's life. First, Tom was on an Ivy League football team as Fitzgerald was. Also, Tom goes to France with his wife as Fitzgerald does as well. Then, Daisy has an affair with a WWI veteran as Fitzgerald's wife Zelda did. Then, there is the story of Nick who was born in the Midwest, as Fitzgerald was. Nick then goes to school out east, lives most of his life there and serves in WWI, as Fitzgerald did as well. Finally, Nick returns back to the Midwest, disappointed and with much contempt for the upper class, as Fitzgerald did as well. Finally, there is the most interesting character of Gatsby. I think that the idea of Gatsby dives the deepest into Fitzgeralds life and his struggles with the upper class, though it has been said the Fitzgerald based this character loosely upon an infamous bootlegger of the time.
Overall, I love this book a lot and have not found any problems with.
Some things that especially caught my eye right off the bat is his insistent use of colors in describing almost everything there is to describe in the novel. For example: he uses yellow to describe Gatsby's car, Dr. T. J. Eckleburg's glasses, the women's dresses, hair of Daisy's child and the light among other things; he uses pink to describe the light in Daisy's room and Gatsby's suit among other things; he uses both black and white in a lot of descriptions and in Tom's racism; he uses green to describe the light from Daisy's dock as viewed by Gatsby and to describe the cars of Mr. Wilson and Tom, among many other things; he uses blue to describe Tom's coupe as well as Dr. T. J. Eckleburg's enormous retinas; finally, he uses grey to describe the region between "West Egg" and Queens along with describing all of the ash that is another important motif in the area. All of these motifs of color, ash and especially the billboard of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg bother me because I have absolutely no inkling as to their importance, if there exists any.
Finally, something that I have been thinking about is what Fitzgerald's inspiration was to create what he did. First, I thought that Fitzgerald's life was that of Nicks, then that of Toms, then that of Gatsby's; but, I recently came to the conclusion that all three have been influenced by bits and pieces of Fitzgerald's life. First, Tom was on an Ivy League football team as Fitzgerald was. Also, Tom goes to France with his wife as Fitzgerald does as well. Then, Daisy has an affair with a WWI veteran as Fitzgerald's wife Zelda did. Then, there is the story of Nick who was born in the Midwest, as Fitzgerald was. Nick then goes to school out east, lives most of his life there and serves in WWI, as Fitzgerald did as well. Finally, Nick returns back to the Midwest, disappointed and with much contempt for the upper class, as Fitzgerald did as well. Finally, there is the most interesting character of Gatsby. I think that the idea of Gatsby dives the deepest into Fitzgeralds life and his struggles with the upper class, though it has been said the Fitzgerald based this character loosely upon an infamous bootlegger of the time.
Overall, I love this book a lot and have not found any problems with.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America by Benjamin Franklin
Ben really hit it on the head in this oppositional essay written in 1784. In this brilliant essay Franklin makes observations on how the society of Indians (mostly the six nations of the confederation of Iroquois tribes) differs from that of the white English in America, the main point of his essay being how the Indians are anything but savages.
He makes a lot of interesting observations in this essay, first being when he compares the government in the Indian public councils to that of the British house of commons. First, he talks about how in the Indian council when someone is to speak he rises while the others stay quiet and listen, then wait after he is done for him to recollect anything he has missed, for they see it as "highly indecent" to interrupt the speaker. Then, he talks about how in the British house of commons people talk over each other so much that frequently the speaker has to call the house to order. He goes further in comparing European society to the Indians that when the society speaks they have to do so "with great rapidity" otherwise being cut off in the middle of a sentence "by the impatient loquacity of those you converse with...." This is a good observation of how Indians, in fact, are more civil to our standards than we are.
The final observation that Franklin makes is in a story of a group of Indians that were encountered by a Swedish minister trying to conform them to Christianity. The Indians acknowledged his ministry and his religion but declined to use it in their society, responding with a story of their own religion that he denied outright. They told him how this is indecent of him seeing as they recognized his religion, but he shunned theirs as "mere fable, fiction and falsehood," failing to believe a word.
My favorite part by far of this essay is when the Indian tribes, after turning down the offer of the English to educate their warriors offer to educate the English's boys and turn them into real men.
He makes a lot of interesting observations in this essay, first being when he compares the government in the Indian public councils to that of the British house of commons. First, he talks about how in the Indian council when someone is to speak he rises while the others stay quiet and listen, then wait after he is done for him to recollect anything he has missed, for they see it as "highly indecent" to interrupt the speaker. Then, he talks about how in the British house of commons people talk over each other so much that frequently the speaker has to call the house to order. He goes further in comparing European society to the Indians that when the society speaks they have to do so "with great rapidity" otherwise being cut off in the middle of a sentence "by the impatient loquacity of those you converse with...." This is a good observation of how Indians, in fact, are more civil to our standards than we are.
The final observation that Franklin makes is in a story of a group of Indians that were encountered by a Swedish minister trying to conform them to Christianity. The Indians acknowledged his ministry and his religion but declined to use it in their society, responding with a story of their own religion that he denied outright. They told him how this is indecent of him seeing as they recognized his religion, but he shunned theirs as "mere fable, fiction and falsehood," failing to believe a word.
My favorite part by far of this essay is when the Indian tribes, after turning down the offer of the English to educate their warriors offer to educate the English's boys and turn them into real men.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards
First and foremost, I had a lot of problems with Jonathan's sermon. I found a lot of contradictions throughout the speech and his ignorance and standpoint made it very hard for me to read; given he does come from a far different place and time than myself I have to cut him some slack in this respect. I guess the main problem I have with this sermon is in the title itself, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Even though I am no biblical scholar I do know enough about Christianity that the bible talks about how god does not succumb to human emotions but merely punishes man in order for him to learn from his mistakes. This is what confused me, because this theme of an angry God appears consistently throughout his sermon.
Furthermore, Edwards talks initially about how the only reason why man does not "burst into flames" and enter the gates of hell as he sins is because of God's "restraining hand". Later though, he says that the only reason why we don't burst into flames is simply because of God's pity or in most cases because of his likeness.
The most extraordinary thing preached in this sermon was when Edward's is reaching his climax on how terrible God's wrath is by stating "God will be so far from pitying you when you cry to him, that it is said he will only 'laugh and mock,'...." This is the most bothersome line of the entire sermon for me merely by the fact that he twists the line that God will "Laugh and Mock" sinners out of the bible. Seriously, it is to his own fall that he pictures god as this bully who pushes man around under his foot much as a DICTATOR.
In all, this speech may have been effected towards the ignorant colonial crowd during the "Great Awakening" of the early 18th century, but to any other crowd not at all. Finally, to his credit he did use a lot of effective similes...
Furthermore, Edwards talks initially about how the only reason why man does not "burst into flames" and enter the gates of hell as he sins is because of God's "restraining hand". Later though, he says that the only reason why we don't burst into flames is simply because of God's pity or in most cases because of his likeness.
The most extraordinary thing preached in this sermon was when Edward's is reaching his climax on how terrible God's wrath is by stating "God will be so far from pitying you when you cry to him, that it is said he will only 'laugh and mock,'...." This is the most bothersome line of the entire sermon for me merely by the fact that he twists the line that God will "Laugh and Mock" sinners out of the bible. Seriously, it is to his own fall that he pictures god as this bully who pushes man around under his foot much as a DICTATOR.
In all, this speech may have been effected towards the ignorant colonial crowd during the "Great Awakening" of the early 18th century, but to any other crowd not at all. Finally, to his credit he did use a lot of effective similes...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)