I think characterizing Daisy as having won a “bleak victory” is too unambiguous. First, the prism of the novel is Nick, who decidedly orients the novel to praise Gatsby and disparage Tom (and obliquely Daisy). This makes it ambiguous as to whether the title is ironic or not, but if you take Nick’s perspective seriously, as well as his formulation that Gatsby the man is riddled with “corruption” but the dream is “incorruptible,” then pitiable as he is, he is afforded a “Man of la Mancha” -esque redemption and profundity not accessible to the other characters, who are ultimately trifling (even if intentionally, in the case of Daisy); this kind of absurdist redemption is also observable in Abraham as Kierkegaard’s hero. Second, more directly: Daisy’s self-abstraction into carelessness is clearly another form of renouncing the past, something she is also unsuccessful at doing (as exemplified by her affair with Gatsby). She ends the book needing to run away, again, literally and metaphorically. Gatsby tries to catch the past, Daisy to run from it; in my view, the only character who affirms the past is Nick in writing the book
myrtle & george being alternate versions of daisy & gatsby is blowingg my mind!!!! so good
Another banger
well shit.
Yes!
I loved this a lot. Huge fan of your writing style and huge fan of Gatsby and the ‘uncanny as Michael Jordan with a baseball bat’ simile!
Feliz de saber que a sua crise existencial acabou e agora podemos conversar abertamente sobre : The Great Gatsby 🤩 awesome
Into the Harold likes standard canon gear shift today
Good stuff. Delish sandwiches were so bad but so…good.
brilliant
I think characterizing Daisy as having won a “bleak victory” is too unambiguous. First, the prism of the novel is Nick, who decidedly orients the novel to praise Gatsby and disparage Tom (and obliquely Daisy). This makes it ambiguous as to whether the title is ironic or not, but if you take Nick’s perspective seriously, as well as his formulation that Gatsby the man is riddled with “corruption” but the dream is “incorruptible,” then pitiable as he is, he is afforded a “Man of la Mancha” -esque redemption and profundity not accessible to the other characters, who are ultimately trifling (even if intentionally, in the case of Daisy); this kind of absurdist redemption is also observable in Abraham as Kierkegaard’s hero. Second, more directly: Daisy’s self-abstraction into carelessness is clearly another form of renouncing the past, something she is also unsuccessful at doing (as exemplified by her affair with Gatsby). She ends the book needing to run away, again, literally and metaphorically. Gatsby tries to catch the past, Daisy to run from it; in my view, the only character who affirms the past is Nick in writing the book