During my final years in Cambridge, my college would run a Great
Gatsby themed formal dinner, which of course offered marvelous
opportunities for dressing up. I even went to a costume party shop
and asked for a suitable head band. But I wonder how many people at
those dinners, students or Fellows, had actually read the novel. I
had read it, I read it when I was very young, and I had vague
memories of it. Therefore I included it in my 2020 re-reading
challenge.
What I remembered was what anyone might know even without having read
the book. It takes place in the 1920s, Gatsby is tremendously rich
and gives huge parties, there is a romantic mystery, and he dies in
the end. If you had asked me a week ago how he dies, I would have
claimed with confidence that he commits suicide. (No spoilers, but he
doesn't).
In many works of literary criticism
The Great Gatsby is used
as an example of witness-narrator: a first-person narrator who tells
someone else's story. I have repeated this false statement many
times. Nick Carraway is a highly self-centered narrator and occupies
significantly more space in the novel than Gatsby. I was surprised to
notice that Gatsby is only present marginally in the first third of
the book, as a neighbour with a dubious reputation. Encounter with
Gatsby shatters Nick's worldview, makes him abandon his career –
Nick is doubtless the main character in his own story, while Gatsby
is what narratologists would call a catalyst, a character who affects
the protagonist's fate. A substantial bit of the plot also revolves
around Nick's romantic involvement. In other words, Nick is in no way
an objective biographer. It is his story, not Gatsby's. And as a
narrator, he is totally unreliable, not least because he repeatedly
admits that he dislikes Gatsby. What I did, however, notice and
appreciate with my critical, narratological eyes, is how the narrator
accounts for something that someone else tells him, but not in direct
speech, and not in reported speech, but as if he really witnessed it,
suddenly interrupted either by direct speech or abrupt temporal
shift. There are also recurrent flashforwards of the type: All this I
learned much later…
My memory of Gatsby was of a romantic figure. I think the reason is
the unhappy love story. As readers we are conditioned to emphathise
with unhappy lovers, and although I did not remember the details, I
had the sense of his actions justified by love. Yet as it turns out,
he is a liar, a hypocrite, a financial criminal and ultimately a
murder accomplice. Nick has all the reasons to dislike him.
I had completely forgotten Gatsby's father who comes to his funeral.
The pathetic funeral episode made me in a way reconcile with Gatsby;
I felt genuinely sorry for him.
It is brilliantly written, and I enjoyed every page. I may re-read it
soon again.
No comments:
Post a Comment