Comments

  • I'm going high on this one. Watch this and don't smile.

    Jon Batiste - I NEED YOU
    Youtube AXT00sWwuTQ
  • Interesting.

    "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
  • foo monkey: I'm going high on this one. Watch this and don't smile.

    [Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/AXT00sWw​uTQ]


    This is really nice.
  • Will it involve anthropomorphic animals?
  • rjakobi: Will it involve anthropomorphic animals?


    Worse.   Furries.
  • dittybopper: rjakobi: Will it involve anthropomorphic animals?

    Worse.   Furries.


    The Great Catsby
  • It's the Great Gatsby, Charlie Brown.
  • Promo Sapien: dittybopper: rjakobi: Will it involve anthropomorphic animals?

    Worse.   Furries.

    The Great Catsby


    encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
  • Whether or not you're a fan of Family Guy, their take on The Great Gatsby is pretty hilarious.
  • I've read most of the American classics, though never this one, despite the urging of my buddy who is en English professor.   Even the cliff-notes were boring.
  • T.rex: I've read most of the American classics, though never this one, despite the urging of my buddy who is en English professor.   Even the cliff-notes were boring.


    One of my favorite moments with my wife was when we both secretly admitted to each other that we found The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye both boring as hell.

    I'll admit that both books capture something unique about the American Experience, but I've never understood why they are treated with such reverence. It's like, "Yeah I get it, the billboard with the glasses is a metaphor. You don't need to hit me over the head with it another forty times."

    When it comes to the Great American Novel, I'll take Mark Twain any day over Fitzgerald and Salinger. Twain could be just as profound and deep without losing his sense of fun or brevity. And he wasn't a dick.
  • leviosaurus:

    When it comes to the Great American Novel, I'll take Mark Twain any day over Fitzgerald and Salinger. Twain could be just as profound and deep without losing his sense of fun or brevity. And he wasn't a dick.

    Huck Finn is on my top 10 list..... Never read it in school as i was supposed to, but read it later in life.
  • T.rex: leviosaurus:

    When it comes to the Great American Novel, I'll take Mark Twain any day over Fitzgerald and Salinger. Twain could be just as profound and deep without losing his sense of fun or brevity. And he wasn't a dick.

    Huck Finn is on my top 10 list..... Never read it in school as i was supposed to, but read it later in life.


    I reread that one every few years. Parts of it still make me laugh out loud.
  • leviosaurus: T.rex: I've read most of the American classics, though never this one, despite the urging of my buddy who is en English professor.   Even the cliff-notes were boring.

    One of my favorite moments with my wife was when we both secretly admitted to each other that we found The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye both boring as hell.

    I'll admit that both books capture something unique about the American Experience, but I've never understood why they are treated with such reverence. It's like, "Yeah I get it, the billboard with the glasses is a metaphor. You don't need to hit me over the head with it another forty times."

    When it comes to the Great American Novel, I'll take Mark Twain any day over Fitzgerald and Salinger. Twain could be just as profound and deep without losing his sense of fun or brevity. And he wasn't a dick.



    I also find that Gatsby has not aged well for us.
    That was the way it was then, there was a certain amount of subtlety and covertness, to the behavior of wealthy above the law privilege.
    And none of that lines up at all with today's cultural norms of overt and flagrant flaunting of the privilege of wealth by those that have it.
    they would not subtly show the cop a business card to get out of a ticket, they'd make a ticktok of berating the cop for not already knowing who the fook they are and having the audacity to try and ticket them for law breaking.

    Gatsby is no longer actually a relevant depiction of our reality today, it can't teach us about us now the way it was trying to show us what were back then.
  • leviosaurus: When it comes to the Great American Novel, I'll take Mark Twain any day over Fitzgerald and Salinger. Twain could be just as profound and deep without losing his sense of fun or brevity. And he wasn't a dick.


    This is quantifiably untrue.

    Huckleberry Finn's has 109,571 words.

    Great Gatsby has 47,094.

    Now qualifiably, Gatsby's subject matter or Fitzgerald's writing style may have made you felt like it dragged.  That's your opinion and I certainly can't tell you it's wrong.  Art is art.  I just found it amusing because I reread Gatsby in a few hours this weekend (loved it, picked up on a bunch of stuff I either missed or forgot), and gave up on Huck Finn about six months ago (again) because I felt it dragged on.

    All kinds of people in this world.
  • PvtStash: leviosaurus: T.rex: I've read most of the American classics, though never this one, despite the urging of my buddy who is en English professor.   Even the cliff-notes were boring.

    One of my favorite moments with my wife was when we both secretly admitted to each other that we found The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye both boring as hell.

    I'll admit that both books capture something unique about the American Experience, but I've never understood why they are treated with such reverence. It's like, "Yeah I get it, the billboard with the glasses is a metaphor. You don't need to hit me over the head with it another forty times."

    When it comes to the Great American Novel, I'll take Mark Twain any day over Fitzgerald and Salinger. Twain could be just as profound and deep without losing his sense of fun or brevity. And he wasn't a dick.


    I also find that Gatsby has not aged well for us.
    That was the way it was then, there was a certain amount of subtlety and covertness, to the behavior of wealthy above the law privilege.
    And none of that lines up at all with today's cultural norms of overt and flagrant flaunting of the privilege of wealth by those that have it.
    they would not subtly show the cop a business card to get out of a ticket, they'd make a ticktok of berating the cop for not already knowing who the fook they are and having the audacity to try and ticket them for law breaking.

    Gatsby is no longer actually a relevant depiction of our reality today, it can't teach us about us now the way it was trying to show us what were back then.


    You're seeing the nouveau-riche and the by-definition-not-top-class entertainment industry sorts. The funny thing about Fussell's "Top Out-of-Sight" class is that you don't notice them unless you go looking.

    The clash of these distinct flavors of "rich" is part of the conflict in the book, in fact.
  • PvtStash: I also find that Gatsby has not aged well for us.
    That was the way it was then, there was a certain amount of subtlety and covertness, to the behavior of wealthy above the law privilege.
    And none of that lines up at all with today's cultural norms of overt and flagrant flaunting of the privilege of wealth by those that have it.
    they would not subtly show the cop a business card to get out of a ticket, they'd make a ticktok of berating the cop for not already knowing who the fook they are and having the audacity to try and ticket them for law breaking.

    Gatsby is no longer actually a relevant depiction of our reality today, it can't teach us about us now the way it was trying to show us what were back then.


    The great thing about Gatsby is there's several things you can focus on.  The excesses of the rich are one.  The perils of materialism are another.  I always identified with the characters the most.I grew up as one of the last white trash Florida cracker family holdouts in a gentrified area.   And my grandparents still had some money, so on special occasions I would go to the yacht club and catch a glimpse of the other half. But my parents had no money, and there a vain attempts to put on airs (sometimes to their children's detriment) were tedious and ludicrous to me, even as a child.

    Then, sports and later the universities I went to allowed me more access to the upper class.  And I really loved both the Jordan Baker and Daisy Buchanan characters.  I dated both of them.  And like Gatsby, I felt like my Daisy was some golden ticket to acceptance and boosting the family name.  Luckily I figured out how stupid that was in my late twenties and I've often wondered if that was due to my love of Gatsby.
  • FLMountainMan: leviosaurus: When it comes to the Great American Novel, I'll take Mark Twain any day over Fitzgerald and Salinger. Twain could be just as profound and deep without losing his sense of fun or brevity. And he wasn't a dick.

    This is quantifiably untrue.

    Huckleberry Finn's has 109,571 words.

    Great Gatsby has 47,094.

    Now qualifiably, Gatsby's subject matter or Fitzgerald's writing style may have made you felt like it dragged.  That's your opinion and I certainly can't tell you it's wrong.  Art is art.  I just found it amusing because I reread Gatsby in a few hours this weekend (loved it, picked up on a bunch of stuff I either missed or forgot), and gave up on Huck Finn about six months ago (again) because I felt it dragged on.

    All kinds of people in this world.


    Huck tells a new story in each chapter, with new characters, new metaphors, new insight. It's like the Mississippi river - it winds and bends, but each new curve is like seeing a whole new river.

    When Andy Kaufman was angry at his audience and wanted to punish them, he read them Gatsby.
  • Gatsby is a good, quick, easy read--if you're a literature reader.

    For whatever reason, I think people have a better intuitive understanding that coming to appreciate a new musical genre takes work and exposure, and that some genres are harder to get into than others, yet believe that if they can read the literal words on a page then they're entirely ready to read anything. It's like thinking you're fit to appreciate & judge baroque music, or hip-hop, of jazz, because you can tap a beat and follow a melody and aren't deaf. Clearly that's silly. You have to put in the work

    Otherwise you're like lifelong top-40s listeners who opine that all rap sucks or classical is boring or jazz is just noise (we've all known these people, yes?). You're not enlightening us about any of those works, you're just exposing that not only do you not understand those genres, but that you don't even realize that effort and education (in some sense) are necessary to understand them in the first place. If you knew the latter you'd at least know to stay quiet, or, better, to ask questions.
  • I had to slog through that book in high school. Something about West Egg, parties and... someone rich, I think. Granted, it wasn't a bad a slog as reading "Rebecca". I couldn't even finish that one. I can't even remember what it was about, all I remember is that it bored me into a coma.
  • fallingcow: Gatsby is a good, quick, easy read--if you're a literature reader.

    For whatever reason, I think people have a better intuitive understanding that coming to appreciate a new musical genre takes work and exposure, and that some genres are harder to get into than others, yet believe that if they can read the literal words on a page then they're entirely ready to read anything. It's like thinking you're fit to appreciate & judge baroque music, or hip-hop, of jazz, because you can tap a beat and follow a melody and aren't deaf. Clearly that's silly. You have to put in the work

    Otherwise you're like lifelong top-40s listeners who opine that all rap sucks or classical is boring or jazz is just noise (we've all known these people, yes?). You're not enlightening us about any of those works, you're just exposing that not only do you not understand those genres, but that you don't even realize that effort and education (in some sense) are necessary to understand them in the first place. If you knew the latter you'd at least know to stay quiet, or, better, to ask questions.


    Did you know the billboard with the glasses are a metaphor? The glasses are a metaphor. THE GLASSES. ARE. A. METAPHOR.

    Wow, took me a long time learn to appreciate and understand that! Guess I'm just a top 40 listener who can't appreciate the subtlety and nuance of being hit over the head with the same metaphor fifty times.
  • fallingcow: Gatsby is a good, quick, easy read--if you're a literature reader.

    For whatever reason, I think people have a better intuitive understanding that coming to appreciate a new musical genre takes work and exposure, and that some genres are harder to get into than others, yet believe that if they can read the literal words on a page then they're entirely ready to read anything. It's like thinking you're fit to appreciate & judge baroque music, or hip-hop, of jazz, because you can tap a beat and follow a melody and aren't deaf. Clearly that's silly. You have to put in the work

    Otherwise you're like lifelong top-40s listeners who opine that all rap sucks or classical is boring or jazz is just noise (we've all known these people, yes?). You're not enlightening us about any of those works, you're just exposing that not only do you not understand those genres, but that you don't even realize that effort and education (in some sense) are necessary to understand them in the first place. If you knew the latter you'd at least know to stay quiet, or, better, to ask questions.


    This is true, but there is a wildcard. Sometimes it's possible that a work resonates with you even if you are not prepared to understand it. I don't 'get' jazz but there is the occasional jazz recording that I'll hear and like, only to find out after the fact that it's jazz.

    I think some people approach reading the same way. They may read popular fiction and therefore expect literature to be just as approachable. It's possible they feel this way because sometime in the past they read a work of literature that spoke to them and they're looking for the next one that can do the same.
  • The funny thing is I read it in HS just like probably everyone else here, and at the time I thought it was a snooze.  But when I read it again as an adult I really liked it a lot.  it's a work wasted on teenagers.  I'm not sure why it became such a go to work for HS English teachers.  I don't think the themes of Great Gatsby are generally relatable to the typical high schooler - things from the distant past - regrettable decisions, lost love, unbridled ambition/greed, cheating/infidelity, etc.  These are things that make a lot more sense as an adult.

    I also like it as a product of its time - a novel of the jazz era before the crash. Sort of like reading Bonfire of the Vanities IMHO is a novel that captures the spirit of the 1980's.
  • Birnone: This is true, but there is a wildcard. Sometimes it's possible that a work resonates with you even if you are not prepared to understand it. I don't 'get' jazz but there is the occasional jazz recording that I'll hear and like, only to find out after the fact that it's jazz.

    I think some people approach reading the same way. They may read popular fiction and therefore expect literature to be just as approachable. It's possible they feel this way because sometime in the past they read a work of literature that spoke to them and they're looking for the next one that can do the same.


    Absolutely! Those gateways are absolute treasure, when you stumble on one. Salinger (mostly the Glass family stories) and Vonnegut (a very common one, I think?) were some of mine. Both have since sunk in my estimation (one of them more than the other) as I've grown, but that's pretty normal.

    nb. I don't consider Gatsby (or anything) above critique, but a flat "it's boring" or "the symbolism (pointed out to me, excruciatingly-for-all-concerned, a decade or more ago by a sad, unfortunate high school literature teacher given with the destined-to-mostly-fail task of trying to level-up unmotivated teenagers so they can understand something deeper than Harry Potter) is lame" are way more likely to be a signs someone wasn't or isn't ready for it, than any useful signal that it's bad, in the same way someone saying "I hate Kanye West, I can't understand what he's even saying" or "all his songs sound exactly the same to me" is a strong signal you're not dealing with someone whose opinions about Kanye are very valuable, while not implying that there aren't decent reasons to dislike Kanye's music --nor even necessarily implying that same music is good in the first place.

    They're like the "ugh, boring, made me fall asleep" or "yeah yeah I had that Peter and the Wolf tape that everyone did; leitmotifs are lame" of classical music criticism. Like, it's cool if you want to stick to pop music, no-one's got time to understand and appreciate everything so we all pick our battles, but you're wrong and you'd be better off if you knew your own limitations, so that they were a choice rather than just something that's happening to you.
  • Load 11 of 11 newer comments
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.