And Maxwell Perkins was arguably the finest editor of his time. He also fine- tuned Thomas Wolfe. The thought of Two and a Half reading Look Homeward Angel gives me pause.
I would go to Harry’s Bar for a Bloody Mary to drink to Fitzgerald and Wolfe, but it’s just another unfound door.
Faulkner’s not heavy-handed? Huh? While I’d admit there are flashes of brilliance in his writing (sort of the million monkeys strapped to typewriters, IMHO), if you can’t figure out the ending of a Faulkner book by the time you finish the first chapter (if not the first paragraph), you’ve got problems. Faulkner, and to a greater extent his friend Flannery O’Connor, are hacks of the highest order. Damn near every one of my college English professors foisted their writings on me and I still suffer PTSD because of it.
You wouldn’t happen to like Hunter S. Thompson, would you? Because he thought Fitzgerald was great. So much so, that he retyped everything Fitzgerald wrote in order to understand it better.
And I find McCarthy literally unreadable.
So now what? Should everybody stop reading him? Should you stop defending him? Should people stop awarding him major literary prizes?
Probably not any more than anybody could believe that Fitzgerald wrote like a hack because of a few adverbs.
Despite what Elmore Leonard would have you think, modifying the word “said” or using a more descriptive term in its place is not prima facie evidence of hackdom. (Or “heavy-handedness,” whatever that is meant to mean.)
Fitzgerald is not a dispassionate narrator; he’s telling you the story as well as showing it to you. There’s nothing wrong with that. Especially coming from a man who wrote some of the most gorgeous prose in the English language.
Terrible writing, terrible story. Who gives a whoop about Montenegro/Daisy/other lost things. Get on with it losers!
The word of the day is “pretentious.” Pretentious writing by a booze soaked author that’s loved by pretentious people.
There’s a reason Andy Kaufman read Gatsby to audiences when they ticked him off. It’s hard to think of worse punishment.
I don’t have the energy to rant, but Tuckerfan’s post is what I would have said.
I think you are imagineering something from A SNL sketch. Kaufman certainly read Gatsby to live audiences but not because they had ticked him off, but rather because it was anti-humour. Some nights he began his bit reading from Gatsby and sometimes continued for long periods. In New York he was heckled and pelted with food but just kept reading.
That’s the kind of in-depth literary criticism I’ve always loved around here. 
With all due respect, this is nitpicky. I won’t argue whether or not you truly find the use of “redundant” adverbs annoying, but I will suggest your critical acumen is perhaps mis-tuned if this IYO is a glaring-enough problem to underappreciate the work.
The key difference is between “liking” and “appreciating” a work. Whether or not you like Fitzgerald’s style is your business, but IMO even if I accept your criticism (and I’d argue a more florid narrative style is the product of an age less interested in the hidden implications of dialogue as modern readers are), it’s a tiny, tiny problem balanced against the collected genius of Fitzgerald’s style. Perhaps you are especially tuned to this flaw, but objectively it’s minuscule.
I can appreciate large parts of Fitzgerald’s work. It is because there is so much to appreciate that I find the overwrought style so frustrating. Fitzgerald seems to just beat the reader over the head. In the above example, when he uses “blankly,” he might as well put, “I honestly did not know he had a woman in New York,” in parentheses.
The problem I have with Fitzgerald is that he is basically holding the reader’s hand telling the reader the same information over and over while at the same time presenting a deep and complex work. Again, back to the example. It is already clear that Jordan hesitated. It was signaled with the dash. There is no need to tell the reader this again. Say what you like about Faulkner and O’Connor, they do not treat their readers like children.
Okay - you are welcome not to like it. However, to declare it be objectively “bad writing” is to discount the opinion of the many of the public (who consistently vote it at or near the top of great novels), scholars/historians, highly-respected writers and, heck, even most Dopers in this thread. Find me one respected writer - someone known for their craft as much as the story the craft is applied to - who slogs Fitzgerald, period, let alone for that specific style choice. And don’t give me Hemingway - who clearly tried to make Fitzgerald his bitch in a few ways, and bad-mouthed Fitz’s writing more out of insecurity and vain ego than having a credible argument.
Beyond that, you are welcome to your opinion. I don’t share it.
The hell they don’t. They telegraph the final outcome at the outset and then proceed to bludgeon the reader over the head with it for the rest of the work. Neither one of them were capable of coming up with anything as sophisticated as say, The Star Wars Holiday Special.
ftg, I had to write/discuss stuff about this book for an English class I took a couple of years ago. By the time I was finished my teacher had NO DOUBT how much I hated it. Good god, it still remains a painful memory…
I’m laughing over the thought that Fitzgerald has some “unnecessary” descriptors in his dialouge but Steinbeck gets a pass for three goddamn pages of goddamn turtle crossing the goddamn road.
THANK YOU!!! I can’t stand Steinbeck for this EXACT reason. My friends try to convert me because they think he’s amazing. Never. Again.
As I mention in an earlier thread, IMHO, Steinbeck is not the craftsman as a writer vs. others like Fitz and Hemingway. However, he can tell a story; but if you only read his heavy stuff like The Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden, you develop a completely different impression of him vs. Tortilla Flat and Cannery Row, both of which are brief, fun and timeless. Great stuff.
Cannery Row is fun? Do you stick needles in your eyes for entertainment, too.
(East of Eden is actually my favorite Steinbeck. But it ain’t fun.)
Sure its fun - it’s a warm charming look at a grimy cast of characters doing a variety of shenanigans. Back in the day, the nicknames of the towns on the Monterey Peninsula were Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pacific Grove-by-God and Monterey-by-the-Smell (due to the fish canneries there). Cannery Row describes that old Monterey - I really enjoy that book.
I think his style is perfect 1920’s. His later stuff (when his career and drinking went south) are pretty bad. But he describes Gatsby’s life and times to a T. Nobody (except Dickens) has done as great a job.
These are not superfluous, they are ironic: Nick isn’t innocent, he’s seeking cheap gossip–Jordan isn’t hesitant, she’s dying to tell, and Nick isn’t blank, he understand exactly and immediately, he’s responding with a sort of fake naivete, acting as if he’s innocent to Tom’s true nature. It’s a sort of game, a pretense that they aren’t being sordid, and it sets the stage for all the interactions to come.