I just finished reading this masterpiece without watching any movies. Nick started seeming a trusty protagonist and ended up as another flawed human in the story. Gatsby was 2 pure 4 this world. Nah, he had his issues too. 10/10 would recommend.
@Red Ensign The reason for them to believe they are honest may be that they didn't realize their own flaws. No person is perfect, but some believe they are.
@@tzuyuhuang785 But wouldn't someone hyper awarw of their own flaws also know their own strengths? And if one such strength was honestly wouldn't it then be accurate?
I don't think it's meant to sound self centered, Nick saying that he's the most honest person he knows is meant to make the reader aware that compared to everyone else he is the most honest, meaning that no one in this book is honest. Everyone is a lier.
On re-reading Gatsby recently, I was struck that Nick was very judgmental (in his mind at least), and crucially, even judged Gatsby quite harshly after their first few meetings. It seems like the novel is him overcoming his initial poor judgment of Gatsby until he realises that "he's better than the whole bunch put together". And he's so glad he told him that in the end, as that was the only compliment he ever paid him. The whole novel is like he's trying to make up for not defending Gatsby more when he was alive.
And for not condemning and voicing his observations of Daisy and Tom in the moment. Something pretty key I noticed is in that initial description of his character and how he's "inclined to reserve all judgments", he feels like he's talking more about his past self reserving judgments. When you think about it the book, while an observation on extravagant materialistic rich people and their lives, is often him passing judgement on everything he observed. He even says, after the initial paragraph on how he tries not to judge, that he has a limit, one can assume he's reached his breaking point and this book is the result of that; the result of suppressed judgments. There's guilt for not defending Gatsby, yes, as well as anger. Anger towards Tom and Daisy, this seeps into his illustrations of them, we know by the end of the events described in the book we've reached the beginning again (Gatsby dead, Nick beginning to write the book) and we can see that he was angry by how careless they were. Maybe he wasn't necessarily that judgmental in the moment, but only afterwards, after the tragedy of Gatsby's death, does he describe Tom and Daisy rather judgmentally. It's like if you knew a person was going to do a horrible thing, and this biases your opinion of them, making you unfairly judgmental of them because they haven't done it yet. It creates a sense of foreshadowing in the novel, we can see Tom's violence and aggression and Daisy's materialism and these are key traits for future events, but is it fair for Nick to describe them harshly in those isolated moments? For example, his talk with Daisy after dinner and how he feels she's guilty of "basic insincerity", are those judgments from the moment or judgments he's formed because he knows what she does later on?
The whole book is about fitzgeralds outlook on the twenties. The whole point is for you to realize that while nick was the main character technically, he was fake just like the rest of the 20s
He kind of his. Gatsby is a delusional bootlegger in love with Daisy. Who herself is a miserable bitch married to a thuggish filandering racist named Tom. I can't blame him for his attitude, I'd be fed up to.
@@roddo1955 Lol you know what, I think Gretchen Wieners is Gatsby. She has AMBITION. And her hair is full of secrets. But Janice... I think if Gatsby had had a Damien in his life he would have been fine.
That’s why I like Nick though. The entire idea is that none of these people, except Gatsby, are remotely likable. They’re all vain, cowardly and obsessed with material wealth. Even Nick at times stresses the amount of money his books cost and the money he wishes to make. However, Nick IS the most honest person, because he’s willing to even put himself down in the story at times in order to put the story into context. The fact that you can tell that Nick isn’t a great guy is him being honest enough to bring it across.
But why should Gatsby be likeable though? Probably the most of them all, yes, but he is so madly in love with a very superficial person and he even knows that she is. I don't know, I don't think that's so likable.
@@riotgrrrl8807 I think it is worst than that. Gatsby is in love with an even shallower imaginary version of a superficial person. If you think about it, there are exactly two hints at a bit of complexity in Daisy: 1) That, as a rich married woman in the 1920's tied to a vain man, she is frustrated by how little point her life has and makes of her own superficiality an armor (as she learned her newborn baby was a girl, she imediately hoped she would be a fool, because that's the only way she could find any happyness in life). 2) while currently unhappy, she can't bring herself to deny that she once loved and was happy with Tom, even as she is planning to leave him. That's kind of a mature realization. Gatsby couldn't care less about what she really is, faults and hints of complexity, Daisy is, for him, just another thing he needs to play the part he envisioned for himself, like the perpetually unopened books.
@@edisonlima4647 Very good point. What she says about the baby girl is actually the quote from the book I remember the most. I'm glad you brought it up.
Nick states he is "the most honest person I know." That's not saying he's honest, just more honest than the people around him. I caught that when I read it way back in 10th grade.
Just simply consider this: there are two people in trouble as you know. Look at how much private information each person knows about each other, when the one doesn't really tell anything about (I need that information because I don't have. But never tell me the contents of that in detail just tell me if there is or isn't). Compare the amount of information each person know. For example: I wonder how much he knows about me through what. The more important here is through what. Was that a legal means by him/herself e.g. posting, publicising at own will? Or illegal other means that could cause the spark? Does she even know that what he knows, when he knows everything about where she was and what she thinks etc? That would help the understanding.
@@hulamames8650 it wasn't even too much about himself. I saw that as him trying to tell us that everyone is SO dishonest, that hes the MOST honest person he knows.
You have to wonder about just how reliable a narrator Nick Carraway is. Gatsby is not exactly an admirable person; he's a liar, he's involved in criminal activity (which was how he gained his wealth); he sets out to win the heart of a married woman, whom he has idealized in his mind from their past love affair. Nick admires Gatsby and in the end, demonizes his cousin Daisy and her husband Tom for "ruining" Gatsby but in some ways, Gatsby sealed his own fate by refusing to accept reality.
And while talking about how Nick started to dislike Jordan when he noticed she was "dishonest" (because she lied about leaving her car door open or something), and about how he HATES dishonesty, he is the best buddy ever with Gatsby, a man far from squeaky clean.
how to accept reality when you´re so used to shape it at your will? how turn down love when it was the only thing that maked you move foward? it would be like drain the blood out of a beating heart and expected to keep it beating.
Sounds similar to my love life lol... super pathetic I sympathized with jay, and also my ex J... but realized they both did things the incorrect way. Doesn’t matter how many nice things you do if you still aren’t doing the right thing. I’m deff not married though Lol Great movie though always will be .
I always thought that Nick Carraway idolizing Gatbsy for his love for a married woman was a reflection of F. Scott Fitzgerald's own immorality. His wikipedia page indicates that he had at least two affairs. So, I never thought that Nick Carraway was a good guy, he seemed to be a stand in for F. Scott Fitzgerald, who was a real piece of work.
@ComaBerenices random thought here but I don't think the FDA at the time was a good organization. Like, not thorough or careful AT ALL. Many times in the early 20th century they allowed ridiculously dangerous beverages and medications to be sold to the public (including radioactive beverages, and lash therapies that caused blindness). None of that really changed until the 1930s, and even then, they reformatted their process after the UK experienced a generation of physical deformities linked to morning sickness medication (around the 50s and 60s I believe). Basically just saying that the whole "illegal alcohol could be dangerous, laced with stuff, or poisoned", while a fine point, definitely doesn't include the context of just how lax the FDA was at that point in time. The government regulations in place were garbage back then.
i always saw "inclined to reserve all judgments" as "inclined to not voice all judgments". He talks about having to put up with people he admittedly does not like. I took this as an example of him being judgmental, but keeping his opinions to himself. But yeah, "reserving all judgments" would imply not judging at all. Literature, man..
You’ve pointed out part of what makes being a writer or editor particularly thorny. It’s makes it such a joy, an indulgence for me to enjoy well wrought and subtle literature after going to battle with clients all day. There are some who would simply prefer a slightly enhanced spellcheck and believe the style of the book is completely their prerogative, even if it results in a hammer of a book that could easily have been refined to a chisel. In part because of this, being able to stray away from being a glorified dictionary and slip into some really choice writing is among the most enjoyable things in the world for me. It’s like a warm bubble bath, sitting in front of a crackling fire beneath a soft blanket, and eating smooth chocolate all wrapped up in one. It’s comfort and indulgence. I often feel like I need to whip out the infamous red pen and take it to books that I try to read. I even feel a little upset that they’re out there in the world like that, that it’s too late to be able to save them from that fate. With better word choice, less vagueness, and a little more or less description and metaphor, they could be on another level. It completely takes me out of the story and has dampened how much I enjoy reading now. I can’t turn my editing totally off once I’m on my own time. I suppose it’s what makes the greats, perhaps more than anything else. It’s slipping into a satin robe that fits perfectly as you slide right out of your life and into the world they’ve made. It’s one of the best feelings in the world.
We actually talked about this in class not long ago. We talked about how Nick and Jordan are essentially the same person. Both are passive but in different ways. Nick is passive a exterior way in the sense that he never does or voices any objection to anything in fear of coming off a certain way. So he lies subtly. Meanwhile Jordan is passive in an interior way since she is open with her thoughts yet never really feels anything for her actions or words. We also said that while Nick isn't perfect, he is the perfect narrator for this story. No one else would be able to tell the Great Gatsby if they weren't so judgmental or passive of others with little focus to himself. Imagine anyone else, even Gatsby, trying to write this story. It simply wouldn't work.
That's a really interesting take on Jordan and Nick. Thanks for sharing. Also, I agree about Nick being the only real conduit for this story. He's basically the perfect balance of distant and being in the thick of it all.
@@hofhofandaway I think, like Nick, Jordan is relatively detached from what's happening around her. She is emotionally detached, as well as being literally less involved in what is happening. Much like him, she is more of a spectator in the middle of it all. But from what we see of Jordan (through Nick's, but its the best we can get), she never seems to have any serious emotional reaction to what she sees, or have any reaction at all really... she's just a passive observer. She might "act out" in the sense that she says cynical or controversial things but she never seems to be truly moved by what's going on around her. Like Nick, she's just enjoying the show
Hanneke le Roux keen observations! Loved this! Yes, I think that’s her own manifestation of elitism-she’s far above it all, she’s completely unfazed by it all. Thanks for sharing!
But it's important to remember that in the framing device Nick is writing with full knowledge of events. If his narration is disgusted by Tom and Daisy it doesn't mean that he prejudged them. He's post-judged them.
exactly. one of.the messages of.the story was how Nick was naive to keep looking for the best in the others. his unwillingness to see the red flags for what they were leads to his downfall.
He wrote about Daisy in an endearing way for the most part so I'm assuming he still had a soft spot for her but was very disappointed in how superficial she was and how she got away without admitting she killed Myrtle.
i agree, and i noticed it was also neglected to mention that both quotes provided in one scene - the ones about nicks dislike for gatsby and the one about wanting to leave hope - were separated by nick’s realization that gatsby was not the one who hit myrtle
I've never looked at Nick's character very closely before. This was cool. Yeah, I never saw Nick as a Midwestern good old boy, or even terribly likable, but I did see him as mostly an observer. Now, I still believe him when he describes everyone else, but i don't think he's quite as passive as he wants the reader to believe.
Regardless of Nick being good or bad, The Great Gatsby is a classic for a reason. Every character is bad in their own way. That's what allows people to have a conversation that lasts for years
@@sabytopia not that the book isn’t good but I think part of the reason it’s in the curriculum is also practicality. It’s fairly short and a teacher can get through it quick enough as opposed to a behemoth such as say moby dick. The question as to how it became a classic is also interesting. It’s all well and good in hindsight to say “well you know it’s a classic” but upon first release I don’t think it did that well at the time. Perhaps due to the subject matter a lot of ppl thought it was like a detective/ crime novel and read it that way. Someone said it’s like someone today writing really beautifully about the kardashians and so many largely disregard it. I also heard it was one of the books to be issued to soldiers during the war so a ton of copies were made and a ton of ppl read it which maybe helped with its rise in popularity. As well as some of Fitzgerald’s friends and I think daughter keeping his works alive. That’s all very simplistic and I’ve glossed over a lot but there have been talks about this subject that are very informative
And all bad in an essentially American way... It's the Roaring Twenties... the Jazz Age... the dawn of mass media, advertising and consumerism... It's all about America.
@@sabytopia considering that based on my experience american teachers often dont even try to properly teach shakespeare's plays, mark twain's stories, uncle tom's cabin for literature class, i say it's less about great gatsby actually being good but more that it is on the shorter side and being an american story that isn't that controversial to christians
But he’s writing the book after the events. Obviously he judges Tom harshly in the book, he’s seen what a terrible person he is through watching how he handles everything that happens in the book. In the movie, the “chummy” scene where they meet takes place before any of that has happened. I understand the film is supposed to be a visualization of the memoir he’s writing, hence the narration, but in my view that doesn’t mean there aren’t scenes that show how Nick behaved before his experience with Gatsby and everyone. Tom was simply an acquaintance to Nick, his cousin’s husband, and although he may not have loved him or anything, I certainly don’t think he developed the disdain for Tom he shows in the book until after watching how he treats Gatsby, Myrtle, etc, who Nick didn’t know before.
This. It should be remembered that Nick is upper class himself. At the beginning of the story he feels closer to Tom and Daisy (because of class solidarity) than he does to Gatsby. The story tracks the reversal of his perspective.
When I first read this in high school, I was totally on Nick's side because I was influenced by the movie but even then, one thought came to my mind "Why is Nick not doing anything?!" Even if this was all in hindsight, he could have done so much to prevent various tragedies from happening. Nick isn't innocent, he's a flawed man. The whole book felt like Nick trying to cry out for another chance to save Gatsby with clear fire in his eyes against those who wronged Gatsby.
6:50 wait what? Nick has told us these things about Tom-because these are things about Tom! When you’re reading a book, which The Great Gatsby was(a book), you learn things about the character. Are you - what?!
15:01. Did you read the book?! Nick IS one of the few honest people he’s ever known because in this world, these people are shallow and superficial. And after Gatsby is killed, Jordan skips town.
@@randomkeir Inaction is itself an action - if you see something bad but refuse to act, that is a choice and thus an action. If you see someone about to get hit by a truck and have the time to act but don't, you're responsible for that person being hit by a truck. Nick happens to see a WHOLE LOT of approaching trucks.
I've always thought of it this way: Gatsby is Nick's manic pixie dream girl, and Daisy is Gatsby's. A lot of the storytelling plays with the way those perspectives interact and influence each other, somtimes seeing Daisy through two lenses of distortion, and somtimes with Nick being able to understand that Gatsby's fantasy doesn't match with reality but without seeing that he does the same. In this way I find it an intresting story to read. I do wonder what a truly uninvolved and unbiased version of events would look like.
Good point. Really the story itself isn't that interesting. It's rather the romantic lens through which Nick perceives Gatsby's romantic quest which casts an enchanting light over everything.
As for the “chummy” meeting between Nick and Tom in the movie that so sharply contrasts with Nick’s first judgments of Tom in the book, I like to think that Nick did not realize the extent of Tom’s wickedness at the time of their initial meeting in the movie. Nick is writing the book after all the events are said and done. In hindsight, he is able to introduce these characters with the opinions he formed about them over the course of the book’s events, not just his initial judgments (or lack there of).
You are exactly right. We are not reading Nick's daily journal, we are reading a memoir of sorts. If the implied author prefaces past encounters with current interpretation of them, that is to be expected.
They did largely fail to correctly portray Nick’s character in the movie. However, I believe that the greatest failing of the movie is that it shows what Gatsby wrote in the letter Daisy received the night before her wedding with Tom. It shows Gatsby confessing that he was penniless. This defeats the entire purpose of the movie. If Daisy had known he was poor, she never would have gotten back with him.
Yes, I did feel that the movie buys into the fantasy of a love story between Daisy and Gatsby to much... While reading the book, I never really believed that these were star-crossed, ment to be lovers.
Suppose that the hunch already turned out to be truth when all the woman's emotional reactions were poured from the other as if she wanted him in the same way he craved, which is untrue due to the simple facts that there wasnt anything that sincerely attracts to interest her enough to last, how would you verify if that is the truth of the emotion? The answer was her uncertainty in mind because she postponed the procedure to verify who you are (until that time she never looked for you for some reasons that were too intimidating), leaving space for her doubt to prove something crucial but she thought that was not the precise time to prove by his own reactions until that striking moment starting to signify the interrogation for her parents. How would you avoid that conviction?
His name is Care-away. This and the last line of the book shows us all you need to know about the character. "So we beat on..." Nick and Tom and Daisy (old money) are the boats that beat on, without a care in the world. They leave a trail of destruction in their wake- Gatsby, Myrtle (new money or poor).
The "boats that beat on" are not Tom and Daisy, whose enormous wealth protects them from all consequences and makes possible their "vast carelessness". No, those boats are ours, and Gatsby's, and even Nick's - any and all of us who believe in the American Dream, and yet mistake it for money.
@@Cinnogirl He was more than middle class. His father runs a chain of hardware stores, has an office with a big painting of their line's founder, and his rich enough to fund Nick's attempt to get into bonds for a whole year at least. Nick himself went to Yale alongside some of the richest heirs in America. They're certainly not Buchanan rich. But the Carraways are pretty upper-crusty.
The first character that newly-arrived Nick meets is a stranger who asks for directions. Nick acknowledges that having created confusion in a stranger about who he is, or might be, can be rewarding. That is the theme of the novel. Appearances obliterate reality. Gatsby's social inferiority has prompted him to start creating an entirely false new social identity in order to recover the girl who threw him over for a better catch. This notion is his disease, as he has failed to notice that the girl loved the idea of a better catch considerably more than she loved him. He has succeeded brilliantly in repeating the past, but has let love (a form of OCD) blind him to the painful judgment that Daisy is no less vulgar, and possibly less human, than the yah-hoos Gatsby wants to impress, And having now burst that lifelong bubble, Tom comes round to burst Gatsby's other bubble (an air mattress) on which he is lounging in the pool. Nick decides that coming to NYC was a mistake rooted in that pleasurable memory of the stranger asking for directions. He returns to his roots hoping to hide from the awful reality.
"The first character that newly-arrived Nick meets is a stranger who asks for directions." Uh...wrong, lol. The reader is never told whom Nick meets first after arriving, although the Finnish woman who looks after the house and prepares meals for him is mentioned ahead of the stranger who asks directions. "Nick acknowledges that having created confusion in a stranger about who he is, or might be, can be rewarding." Lol, wrong again. From page 6: "How do you get to West Egg village?' he asked helplessly. I told him. And as I walked on I was lonely no longer. I was a guide, a pathfinder, an original settler." To any competent reader, this illustrates an event that comforted Nick by making him feel like a little less of an outsider (he is at least familiar enough with the area to help someone else). The claim that he deliberately confuses the man and takes pleasure from having done so is nowhere validated by the text. It is pure fan-fiction, as is the rest of this analysis.
Ben H. you don’t think it’s odd that someone would declare themselves a guide after being able to give directions once in a place they just arrived? he wasn’t confusing the stranger re: directions, he was taking pleasure in the confusion of his identity as a newcomer vs established person in the area. someone sees him as a pathfinder once and he takes on the false persona. sound familiar????
@@lindzytart A guy asked him for directions. He told him. He then described his feelings. He FELT like a guide. There is literally not one word to suggest that he took pleasure in confusing the man. It is something that YOU are reading INTO the text and is therefore fanfiction. If you have some reason to believe otherwise then refer to the line IN THE TEXT which you are citing as evidence because THE TEXT is actually pretty important when analyzing THE TEXT.
@@Alexie-yc5ww bruh first off, breathe, calm down. he didn't take pleasure in confusing the man. he took pleasure in the alteration of his identity via this gesture, which is literally what the entire book is about. please READ and process comments BEFORE YOU respond, this must be why you have a hard time engaging with literature lol. BE SAFE and wash your HANDS
Is it possible with Nick being an unreliable narrator and so tortured by Gatsby’s death and he events surrounding it, that he added in the “worth the whole bunch of them put together” because that is what he WISHES he had said and suffered from depression because he realized he was complicit?
Yes. It may be he felt that he felt he could have prevented Gatsby's death if only he had been able to assert himself more, and he overcame a disabling sense of guilt by becoming enraged at the way Tom and Daisy had behaved.
I'll attempt to counter one of your arguments with an alternate possibility. Yes, Nick tells us straight away that he was raised to reserve judgement, to see the best in others at all times. However, as you mention, an older Nick is writing this story, and I don't think that this quality is necessarily true of Nick, the narrator... the person that Nick became. As the events of the novel unfold, 'young Nick' seems to struggle with this, the desire to see the best in others and reserve judgement, more and more. He becomes quite disillusioned and jaded, observing the horrors of human nature. So, Nick's description of Tom does not necessarily render him a hypocrite, as 'young Nick' might not have described him in such a way at that time... it's an older Nick, our narrator, who is of course well aware of Tom's abhorrent true nature, that gives us such a description.
They are finished image when she remembers the apron with plaits all the childhood image exhibited by the edge of that frame, darkened by blind and what he intended to make her think as if she holds any memory like that lol. There was't anything more and more watching Joey's ones for a long time in reality, so how would you explain the moment with her kids when that time was less than nothing, just innocent, even barely for the purpose of childcare when sincerely. Or was it what he wanted to see through her face that reminds him of that childish nature as he described. Well, is he wanted for the crucial mistake backfiring lol.
The two biggest misconceptions I ever see about Gatsby is that one: the story is about gatsby and two: the descriptions nick issues of the characters are true. Nick is completely judgemental and can’t get over the fact that in his eyes gatsby is the American dream. Nicks narration implies easily that his telling of events isn’t accurate always, for example, when he drinks at Gatsby’s party.
Zueperman sure, the first point about the novel being about nick is more simple, the illusion that it’s about gatsby is based largely off how much attention gatsby receives in the novel, and how is portrayed as a god, mystical and important, but this is because that is what gatsby is in the eyes of nick, what we read is not nicks story about gatsby, what we read it’s Fitzgerald’s telling of nicks story, which is so greatly affected by gatsby, the novel was supposed to be called under the read white and blue, to refer to the American dream, but was eventually called gatsby as gatsby is nicks idea of the American dream. The second point largely refers to a lot of good points made in the video, nicks description of events isn’t entirely accurate, for instance when he gets drunk, and his telling of the characters is no different, for starters he multiple times compares gatsby to god, when gatsby is essentially a gangster, he also portrays daisy as the ultimate queen of beauty in a lot of ways, but the reality is she isn’t. An example of nicks errors is how he draws attention to the parties of Gatsby’s and the kind words of daisy, and tries to quickly gloss over in minimal lines things like the phone calls gatsby receives, and when daisy reveals herself to be materialistic and shallow. Overall the point is nick is not honest with the real portrayal of the characters, and in my opinion the contrast between the description we get from nick and the revealing surroundings explained by Fitzgerald is what makes all the characters so distinctive. Hope this helps, also a lot of this is up to interpretation.
Yeah I'm confused too. Nick isn't portrayed himself nor presents himself as a great person necessarily. He admits to being judgemental, in spite of his father's advice. He also alludes to being a wallflower type. My English teacher literally told us he's unreliable when it comes to his judgements and recountings lol. None of this is new to me but I love TGG and hardly see videos on Nick, so I still love this analysis!
He lets on to some flaws, sure, but in such a way to be seen as "minor faults." I see it as Nick's way to humanize himself so that we, as his readers, extend him some grace and assume the best about him as the story progresses, rather than perceive the worst.
I think you're on point in saying that Nick doesn't portray himself as great person. I suppose my take is that he is, in fact, an even worse person than he lets on to be. Thanks for the comment!
@@ThoughtWord True, we do criticize the other characters much more than Nick; he's largely overlooked in my opinion. I'm just glad I finally have a great video that conveys my thoughts on Nick so concisely.
Isnt that fairly obvious though? I mean clearly we are to believe Pip wrote Great Expectations, Holden Caulfield at least dictated the Catcher in the Rye, and clearly Charlie Gordon wrote Flowers for Algernon. The main ingredient with a first person narrator is the question of much we should trust them.
Nick Kladky True, although not all books written in first person are what would be considered fictional memoirs. I think the difference there is maybe subtle, but important. When a book is present first, for example, things are often considered to be more honest unless you make a point to have a clearly unreliable narrator. In those cases, the present tense first person narrative allows for a feeling of immediacy and tension. In a figurative sense it’s akin to claustrophobic. There isn’t the luxury of space. You don’t have room to step back and breathe to get distance from the events. Neither does the author. But past tense first person narratives allow more room and freedom. It also allows room for adjustments to be made, justifications and rationalizations. Even if subconsciously, it’s human nature to view yourself as either the good guy in the story or the victim. Time allows for these changes to set in and even for the writer to start to believe them. The truth can bleed between the lines, which is part of why I love Fitzgerald. He was good at those subtle choices that undercut the general sense of the narrative. It lets you see some of the turmoil in the writer’s mind, the indecision and conflict. It’s wonderfully done. He knows the narrative he wants to put forth, but the truth can leak out in descriptors and point us toward what really may be going on behind the scenes. Like most memoirs, it paints a somewhat self-serving and flattering picture. We can only guess at what the real story beneath the narrative is, as we only know what we’ve been told by this one person, with time to shape the story as he wants. Again, in many books this technique isn’t set apart in a hard and fast way from other first person accounts. But this story is a particularly good set piece to look toward when delving into the idea of novels as memoirs of a particular character. I’ve never thought of it specifically as being a kind of memoir, but it’s absolutely on point. I think when working with clients I’ll have to adopt this as a solid shorthand to get across the point of the different strengths of past tense first person.
That ending really struck me--I havent read the novel, but could it be that Nick named it 'The Great Gatsby' not because of his admiration and love for Gatsby as a friend, but due to him defining Gatsby as his personal standard of 'greatness'. Whether this be a positive and awe-striken view of greatness or Nicks lust for the superficial/blind optimism Gatsby embodied, I don't know
If Nick is defining Gatsby as his personal standard of “greatness” then he has admiration and love for him. It can’t be like I have standards what a “great” person should be but i don’t have admiration and love when I meet that person. It goes hand in hand.
The reason it's called The Great Gatsby is because Gatsby is a spectacle to be laughed at. Gatsby shows off his wealth flamboyantly and burns money like crazy. Nick has the manners and upbringing to fit into the wealthy social circle of the novel, but he lacks the wealth. Gatsby wasn't raised as a rich person, so though he may be rich now, he lacks the social skills to be a part of that society. Think about circus exhibits and how the spectacles are called "The Great X" That's what the title means.
He's the Great Gatsby because he represents the American dream of lifting oneself up by the bootstraps and essentially creating oneself - a self-made man.
It amounts to this. Nick is a third wheel, a go between guy who is pretending to be important. He even inserts himself into the world series fix, which is absurd.
I would really like to read this story from Daisy's point of view. Nick (the novel) treats her like she is as deep as a cracked saucer, but the moment she admits that, once she realized her new born child was a girl she wished she would grow up a fool, because that's the only way she would be happy, that gave me a serious pause. A real fool would not know that, so her fleighty nature IS calculated. Plus, refusing to pretend that she was never happy in her marriage was one of the few mature and clear eyed atitudes of ANY character in the novel, so she is much more complex than what Nick perceives.
@@edisonlima4647 could you argue that Nick doesn’t do this intentionally it’s just that it’s from his perspective so it’s natural he’s not going to go in deep about The nuances of Daisy, her life or any other Person outside of perhaps Gatsby?
Yes! You nailed it. Nick is trying to pander to the richest side. You have solved my irritation with Nick. I don't see why he does what he does. He goes along with his cousin's husband's adultery. He facilitates Daisy's adultery. He acts like a benevolent narrator who saw all but that's not true.
Would we feel differently about Nick if he had reservations about the immorality of his cohort? From our perspective, Nick never seems to condemn them, merely tell their story. Are we supposed to feel the same way about the Greek Gods, when we read of their tragedies? Where they go around being jealous and petty and just like Nick's peers?
The Great Gatsby is story about F. Scott himself-anyone who’s read and watched anything on the author should be able to figure this out. He is both Gatsby and Nick. Nick is Fitzgeralds’ conscious self and Gatsby the hidden self. One might say it’s the ego vs super EGO battling it out in these two characters which are opposite versions of himself, each observing yet only one judging the other. The mystery and dichotomy is what fascinates the public and will continue to do so until we as humans figure out how to properly integrate our shadows’ projections and desires into our waking conscious every day life.
I never saw Nick as my friend, I always saw MYSELF as Nick 😂😂😂😂so many times I’ve been that awkward guy sitting on the sidelines watching the drama unfold between some of my friends. He’s very relatable to me.
I have often felt the same...but would I rather be the protagonist of my own (however "lame") story, or the supporting character of sb else's "dazzling" narrative? 😉
and in this way a character becomes "a friend"....or what the uploader here implies with the connection. and he is, of course, wrong, since he immediately assumes that friendship or relatability is some indicator of morality....or benevolence. How many assholes out there have friends....good friends? How many decent people have friends? People befriend those they feel kinship or camaraderie with....it's not about making friends ONLY with saints! The author does well when they write that connection....a relatable, human character. Nick IS your friend. His accounting of tales and the smattering of judgements he makes is minor next to the average human story and retelling. That's why Nick seems so innocent on the first few passes. What kind of book would this be if Nick was some complete innocent? Or some flawless entity we can't relate to? We wouldn't even believe he was IN these situations!!
same here, and no surprise that the first Gatsby scene i watched, n still remember, is the classical culminate scene at the hotel in a hot summer day, dont u call me ole sport, u shut up
My English teacher always made sure to point out his last name, Carraway, literally "care away" means that he really doesn't care about anything that happened. He always saw him as apathetic to the point of being enabling.
@@alanpennie8013 You're reaching he was not in love with Gatsby. He had the fascination that a member of the upper class would have with someone who comes from nothing, and not only has all the talent but managed to somehow make it to a level where they can mingle with elites. What fascinated Nick, is the same reason Daisy's husband, Tom, hated him. Gatsby represented the personification of the American dream, which the elites think is bullshit they made up and peddle to lower classes. But every so often it comes true... If you want to sit here and make homosexual projections, you simply don't get the point of the story
@@tshidi129The “nick was gay for gatsby” theory does admittedly have enough subtext to support it, but you’re right that subtext is less poignant than, well, text. Nick may have been gay for gatsby. He might have been. But whether he was or wasn’t didn’t impact the story in much of a meaningful way, so I’ve never been much interested in discussing it. Nick being a scorned, repressed man experiencing a one-sided love and getting more bitter about his feelings as the story continues until in an act of spite he acts as a bystander instead of preventing gatsby’s death… is an interesting concept that technically works within the parameters we were given in the text. But because it’s so interesting, I’m pretty sure that Scott Fitzgerald would have made that the story if that’s what he actually intended. Like, it wouldn’t be banished to only subtext and innuendo, there would be at least a little more. As it is currently it’s a well-supported headcanon and nothing more.
@@alanpennie8013 Well, if you're going this route, he never made a pass at Gatsby. You can be passionate in thought and feeling and completely apathetic in action. He was incredibly passive.
My grandma always says birds of a feather flock together. That your friends are a representation of who you are. Let’s not forget that he claims to be within and without however that’s not true. He is from that same social circle as the rest of the old money crowd. He and Tom are actually good friends and Daisy is his cousin. When Tom says ignorant things Nick never corrects him or let him know that that is not acceptable. Furthermore Tom is so comfortable with Nick that he cheats on Nick‘s cousin in front of him and Nick never said anything or does anything to let him know that this is not OK. It comes to a point where silence is betrayal. His inability and or unwillingness to confront Tom signals that he is accepting of Tom’s views and lecherous behavior.
He was a friend to Gatsby. Doing favors for him without wanting anything in return. Paying Gatsby a very sincere & flattering compliment. But he’s also not brown-nosing because he doesn’t hesitate to scold Gatsby for being rude when keeping Daisy waiting. He also was there to pay his respects after Gatsby’s death. A good friend.
@@idipped2521 Nick is a very troubled person, and as much in love with Gatsby (or rather with his idea of Gatsby) as Gatsby himself is in love with his idea of Daisy. It's all very sad.
Nick is judgemental and self-righteous af. Sure, his friends are a mess, but they're his friends, so what does that say about him? This was a really great video essay. Thank you.
I’m a bit late here but could it be possible that his statement of being one of the most honest people he’s ever known be a statement about those around him? He’s aware he’s not the greatest man but compared to those around him he is one of the better ones? Just a thought
That’s what I always thought. I didn’t see it as him praising himself I just thought he was saying relative to those around him (not that that’s a very high standard to surpass) he’s a pretty honest guy
I'm glad someone noticed this. When I was a kid high school I noticed that Nick wasn't who he appeared to be. At first, he seems like a nice enough person, and on the surface he is, but underneath everything there's a sense of duplicity and that of being two-faced. For example, he knows everyone's secrets and keeps them from people even when revealing them could be seen as morally right.
Nick’s account is about as flawed as ANYONE telling a memoir though...hence the idea of 3 sides to every story...even amongst “the most honest of us all” whose ego would let them fully tell the truth on themselves to anyone other than themself?🤔
Wait, wait, no, you need to explicitly state the possibility that Nick is not all that sad about Gatsby and rather grateful for the opportunity this experience surrounding the man's death, as it finally allowed him to finish the book he wanted to write. And that thus, he is just another character feeding off Gatsby. Say it to my face, darnit.
Nick know Gatsby is no good, he cheated Gatsby like we know he did, but they are best friend, right? I stole this from some Amy Winehouse's lyrics ^^ I guess u like Nick a bit, n Gatsby too, do u? Critically, i dont believe who make this vid did read the book. Believe me, ole sport, they are best friends. There must be a reason the director let Tobey n Leo act as Nick n JG, they are friends irl.
The Great Gatsby was one of my favorite high school reads. I remember writing an essay on why Nick was never a reliable narrator. He was always judgmental.
100% not true. The darkest places in Hell are reserved for those who initiate human rights abuses. But people who maintain hypocritical neutrality when witnessing moral crises terrify us more, because we realize that we could easily be one of them without recognizing it. Monsters are rare. But people who do nothing in the face of monsters are common.
When I read Gatsby in college what I noticed and focused on in my essay is that Carroway is constantly describing the people around him disparagingly in terms of ethnic and racial stereotypes. He hardly lives up to that opening sentence...
Well, that would have been fairly standard for the time, it was 1925 when the book was wirrten. But inso far as I can recall, Nick is never actually racist, and he seems to dislike Tom's racism.
Everyone in the story is in Nick's eyes responsible for Gatsby's death and to that extent detestable. And of course this is true of himself, a difficult thing for him to face.
Never trust someone who claims to largely be honest. Because that is there first lie and most likely one of the most important lies they`ll ever tell you. Sure some might be more honest then there own good, but this is more so due to a lack of self-restraint then that of a virtue.
I actually never did like Nick, even the first time I read the book. The part that sealed it for me was when he made sure to bring about a meeting of Daisy and Gatsby, and then helped them cover up their affair. Tom may have been a jerk, but so was Daisy, and I just found that really odd that a "moral" character like Nick claimed to be would do that.
I know I’m a little late, but to add on Nick’s spotty morality: I found it strange that in an attempt to get closer to Tom, he hung out with him AND his mistress. What a betrayal to his “beloved” Daisy! It just shows that Gatsby was the most earnest of them all
On my first, totally clean watch without having read the book or indulged any analyses of it, my impressions of Nick were that he was a perfect narrator for a story that was not about himself, were Nick to be a character in this story, told from another person's perspective, we would have rejected Nick as a boring character, or particularly unappealing for his passiveness. This works in Nick's favour for him to be the narrator, though. It's like having a particularly boring or uninspiring parent. They're not a compelling character, but they have their place as the most important person in THIS story at THIS current time.
DaydreamerLoR hold up is nick rarely speaks or gives his ideas or thoughts of the story could it be that he is judging his own actions? Is he trying to be the fine gray line between the characters?
Nick is clearly haunted by Gatsby’s friendship. He wrote the novel as “what became of Nick” to cope with “the young Nick” and what took place. This reminds me of “speak now or forever or forever hold your peace.” Speak up We all are Nick fyi , one way or another.
Now I’m imagining a version of the great Gatsby where nick is doing all these things over drinking, actively cheating, even omitting the truth from gatsby all while narration is playing from the book.
Or maybe he knew that Jordan was married all along, but pretends to find out at the end to make her look like the hedonistic and shallow one. Like the classic manipulative and narcisstic tactic of "they're the problem, not me." Controlling the narrative to make himself look like a saint compared to everyone else, or acting like he's the only sane man when he's really just as fucked up. Also he knows that the reader will judge him for it, and he can't handle his own medicine. Having readers judge him for his transgressions is what he tries to avoid the whole book because he doesn't want to get judged like how he judged everybody. Which is why he paints himself as a passive obsesser, but in reality he directly interrupts their drama and acts opionated and belligerant. Of course then it wouldn't really make sense for him to be a confidant as they wouldn't trust him with their secrets and start oversharing randomly if he goes off on them like that. Personally I think when he calls himself an honest person he admits that the created a "trustworthy" persona which is fake and manipulative. He's acting like he's honest to get them to open up to him, all so that he can get inspired to write his book and ultimately make money off of their problems. He's sort of being facetious with the reader and admitting to his audience that he's using people to get what he wants but it's all just an act. The book is all about the American Dream and how it makes people act fake and selfish in order to achieve their goals. How they delude themselves into thinking either their "long lost love" is real or their "honesty" is sincere when it's not. So Nick empathises with Gatsby's delusions and genuinely feels regret for everything in the end. He gains self awareness that he's terrible and everyone else is too. He writes the entire perspective and heavily implies that he's a bad person too because of his moment of clarity in the end. Nick is basically an author insert of Fitzgerald so they share the opinion that the American dream brings out the worst in people and makes them toxic. Sorry for the massive wall of text I should've just offered my own theory in a different comment, but yours is an interesting interpretation and I wanted to offer my own.
This comment section is making me remember the discussions I had in school about the book. For some reason I feel so smart understanding what they mean because in my English class we came to similar ideas/conclusions.
Nick is just secretly and hopelessly in love and/or obsessed with Gatsby and extremely bitter and angry and broken and almost driven to insanity because he knows he will never have him.
You knew he was questionable on both accounts when he participated in his brother in law cheating on his cousin and then agreed to facilitate his cousin’s cheating. And Nick participated in both these ethically wrong activities with an unsettling doe-eyed innocence which can only be heavy rationalization, ie mental revisionism. “Good people” don’t do any of this. He chose to go to parties, to set up dates, to hide grave information, to be disloyal to his cousin in the name of male brotherhood on both accounts (not denouncing her husband’s cheating and then setting her up with some gangster drama). All this so he can feel included in the action. The worse is I know people like that.
Nick doesn't even like Tom and Daisy yet he hangs out with them. He didn't have to, they weren't close to begin with. I think Nick enjoys being part of their circle because they are rich.
We really don’t know much about Nick or his character, all we know is what he tells us about him. Really the only description we are given on his character is what he tells us about the advice his dad had given him and him believing himself to be an honest man.
I watched a few of the movies and the one thing about his character I took away from them on their own was that he was used as a blank canvas all the time. Without reading the books, one could believe bin to be as artificial as the voiceless and faceless silhouettes so many stories use to appeal to the reader. I never really saw him as a character in his own right on screen. He just existed.
@@Arcaryon On screen he's pretty much a camera eye. In the book he's the same sort of romantic fool Gatsby is. Maybe the bigger fool since he so adores Gatsby, particularly after Gatsby is killed.
I never thought Nick was that great. He was on board with breaking up his cousin’s marriage. He had such disdain for Tom’s brash, clumsy attempts at genuine friendship. He judged them both quite harshly and enabled Gatsby’s self-destructive streak.
One noticeable example of how the reader doesn't fully see all of Nick was through his implied tryst with Mr. McKee. Fitzgerald created a narrator with deep depth. Thanks for the great analysis!
That's an excellent point. It's incredibly vague and euphemism intensive, as if Nick is compelled to tell the story but doesn't want to reveal too much. When teaching the novel to my high school students I dub that lesson "Nick Carraway Might Be Gay Day."
@@ThoughtWord Wow! Thanks for the quick response. That sounds like an amazing lesson. Although I have always wondered how that interpretation gels with his relationship to Jordan and "the girl out west"
@@lcardwell640 I have a bit of a hot take on that too, actually. Jordan is a girl trying to be her own person in a man's world (single, professional athlete, etc). Tom holds her in some contempt for this very reason. As for Nick, it's interesting to note that, upon meeting Jordan, he describes her in surprisingly masculine terms (a "young cadet"). Thus, I think he's not really attracted to her for her "womanly" qualities. He actually does the same thing with his supposed fiancee out west, talking about her "mustache of perspiration" when she plays tennis. There's also some scholarship that's been done (which, admittedly, I'm not totally convinced by) which suggests that Jordan is a lesbian and that her relationship with Nick is less about romance and more about a mutual understanding and nod towards their respective "closetedness."
My biggest issue is that DiCaprio is too convincing. So much of what makes Gatsby a compelling character is the feeling that the closer you get to him the less you truly KNOW about him for certain. Even Meyer who knows him for so long is taken in by the wealthy Midwest family story. What Redford embodies so well is a sense of everything being a mask and a front. In the 2013 version, Nick has a nearly throwaway line about his story being absurd, but Leo sells it too convincingly to really be sold on this. Even as a Midwesterner with a bias, he comes across as too Midwestern nice without enough aloofness.
Nick is an embodiment of the lost generation. He is incapable of action and spends the book watching people do things. At one point he says that he watches girls and in his mind he follows them home and they look at him before going into their house. In his FANTASY he does not speak to them; he’s that damaged and incapable of contact. He is close to thirty when he moves to New York, yet he has to get the approval of his whole family before he can go. He clearly has some sort of sexual encounter with Myrtle’s male neighbor at the party but doesn’t address it-the only ellipse in the story ends with him in the man’s bedroom in his underwear. There is a lot of subtext to Nick that you don’t pick-up on when you read it in high school.
The point is that Gatsby puts Daisy up on a pedestal when she isn’t worthy. Gatsby is only great in the sense that he believes in her purity and goodness and piety, and therefore strives to make his relationship with her pure by erasing all loyalty/allegiance to Tom. But that is impossible. A woman cannot completely deny a man she had a child with, unless she can admit that she was a completely heartless superficial idiot. Which she may well be. But the point is Gatsby is a dreamer. He is naive. He asks too much of Daisy. He is a romantic. And he will do anything to recreate the dream he constructs in his head. And when it falls apart the world comes down around him. It is a tale about expectations verse reality. If Gatsby had have been more humble he would have seen Daisy for the pea brained whore she is, and accepted her as she is, and whisked her away without all the confrontation and drama. The narrator, Nick, gets attached to the romantic vision that Gatsby constructs, and the sad consequences that are brought forth as a result. He chooses to venerate Gatsby as great instead of seeing clearly Gatsby’s flawed approach to life. An excellent lesson in the dangers of subjectivism.
How could you possibly call Daisy pea brained when she never got a true voice in the entirety of the novel (apart from the little extract where she told us of her predictions of her daughters future in this male dominated world, which was quite perceptible at the time.)
I agree. I’m not sure Gatsby truly loved Daisy (the ideal or the reality.). He seemed very obsessed with drama and attention seeking. If Gatsby and Daisy truly loved each other and wanted a life together, it would have been easy enough to have it. Gatsby cared more about drama and confrontation, “erasing” Daisy’s marriage to Tom out of their love. They could have discreetly left town, initiated divorce proceedings, and lived happily ever after. Instead Gatsby wanted this big, vainglorious, public show. I see how this frustrated (and ultimately alienated) Daisy. Daisy was trapped in a loveless marriage with a cheating husband who took her for granted. She had a child with him. In that time it was difficult for a woman to leave a marriage and stay “respectable.” Even if hubby was a monster. Daisy probably first saw Gatsby as a romantic “second chance.” Then she realized he was more about garnering publicity and an “audience” for his “starring vehicle.” Nothing against Gatsby but that was a kick in the teeth for Daisy.
A Masion I love this interpretation! Gatsby absolutely wanted the drama. He wanted the satisfaction of seeing Daisy tell Tom she was leaving him for Gatsby. I still love Gatsby though ☺️
Again dont even try to drift away from the first point and there was nothing in the golden rules she ever broke, because this is simply the problem of the communication structure which doesnt signify who is saying what among those hundred thousand wordings, no privacy agreement in person, no responsibilities after, I suspect the confusion by a number of multiplying different narrations that seem to blur the point trying to hide something behind again. I never trust the narration literally and the confusion of references makes all the things just to be remembered as an impression that someone is trying to tell who did something, but I never recollect myself reading or desire to read the mind of those characters the book spread upon me.
I had similar thoughts when I watched the movie after reading the book. Nick seemed way more downplayed in terms of his narcissism in the 2013 flick. I still liked Tobey Maguire’s performance but something told me that this was a different Nick than the one I read in the Fitzgerald novel.
I imagine the novel could easily be Nick's reflection on things he wishes he did differently or actions he tries to justify to feel less guilty about Jay's death. He wants to be the good guy to cope, so he describes himself setting Jay up with Daisy to give him the hope he always dreamed of; he makes sure to tell the story of Myrtle and Tom's affair to make her someone who maybe deserved to die; and he reflects on the role of wealth in all this to say that he regretted chasing wealth and ending up in New York, in the company of the man whose death would break his world.
I think Luhrman showed the emptiness of the American dream; "All these bright, precious things fade so fast. And they never come back" to make us beautiful, little fools 🤥 But then, I did my best to repress his frame story - I really didn't like that one. Anyway I watched it as a story emptiness and hollowness - I guess I didn't see Nick in the kindhearted way you did - I guess that tells more about me than your sensible critique of Luhrman's choices! ♥️
What always struck me is how the two most authentic relationships Nick has in the novel, to Daisy and Jordan, he willingly pushes aside to get closer to Gatsby, whom he sees as a mentor. If he idolizes a man like that, what does it say about him.
@@andywellsglobaldomination Exactly. I'm unsure why this video doesn't mention this rather important fact. Not only was Nick in love with Gatsby he believed Gatsby's quest to recreate the past the way it ought to have been was praiseworthy and noble. He was a romantic fool, in an extremely American way. It may be that Gatsby wasn't the Quixotic figure that Nick portrays him as. He may have been rather nasty. There's some evidence to that effect.
Truly great analysis. Hadn’t considered that takeaway, that even the “good and honest” people can be sucked into the rush of money, fame, etc. Thanks for making this
I’ll only say this: I LOVED this movie for what it was. I haven’t read the book, but after watching this video I do want a more accurate portrayal of Nick in all his complexities and flaws, as it seems the point of Nick’s entire role in this story is completely lost in this adaptation. But, having been ignorant of this when I watched the film, the movie itself was wonderful and tragic and it told a story I extremely enjoyed. I do, however, understand the significance of what it says about current society for the film industry to so easily gloss over and repackage a narrator so that he is watered down and much easier for the average person to swallow. This film was very good to me, but it could have been great had Nick been more accurately represented, and deeper narrative than “Gatsby just lost himself to the American Dream, poor guy” could have been explored. I wouldn’t call it a waste, since I don’t at all think the end result was garbage, but potential was lost here for sure. I hope a better adaptation is made in the future.
Is it a mischaracterization if that's how Nick wants to see himself? The movie is told from the perspective of nick recounting his story, naturally he would portray a "sanitized" version of himself and others would be characterized with the very defined traits he sees them with.
I always hated this book, before reading it as a nihilistic and cynical look at happiness as hedonic pleasure. Mostly because I fully trusted Nick as a narrator and supposed that he was supposed to be seen as the moral compass for the novel. After watching this video I like it much more as a cautionary tale about vices, narcissism, and your own ability to make a bad situation worse. Great analysis!
It always shocks me to hear when people say Nick is a nonjudgmental and honest person! Like, HELLO, the first chapter is just him being edgy and self-aggrandizing about how he’s oh-so open-minded and doesn’t judge anyone. Has anyone who isn’t judgmental ever had to say it that many times?
16 years ago I wrote my AP English essay about how Nick is just the absolute worst character. Yes, everyone around him sucks too, but, he enabled them all to suck and not try to stop them. Great video!
If know the history of Fitzgerald and his life you find that he plays both Nick and Gatsby in his own life and that it is no difficult to believe that Nick is just as egotistical and disassociated with his own involvement in the misery of others. Fitzgerald is each of his protagonists and different points of his life
I like finding inconsistencies in the novel with Nick's narration, where some parts just contradict each other. For example, when he says he's the most honest person he knows, the previous paragraph was talking about him leading on an ex-lover from another town. Then small details like him saying he's gotten drunk twice in his life, but drinking multiple times throughout the book. There was one part where he says he doesn't see Gatsby for "several weeks" after going to his house with Daisy, but then you find out that it's been about 2 weeks since he originally met with Jordan and talked about Gatsby. Nick is constructing a narrative that is very clearly not the absolute truth of the situation
Ugh I'm about to read this book for the third time😂😂😂 It never gets old, there's so much to unpack with it and it's like Everytime I read it I see it from a new perspective. I read it in the 10th grade, then two summers in a row, studied the film for two film classes, and I'm probably going to read it again this summer so thank you so giving me another way to experience this story.
If I’m being honest, none of this is true
Well, you *are* the most honest person we know.
Nick we are friends right?
Thanks
Uhm, I think you spelled your name wrong nick
fUck
Nick is literally Spider Man Noire from Spider-Verse. HE EVEN LIVES IN NEW YORK
I would love that iteration of spiderman
Wow, such a beautiful video. Really is a lot to think about
I just finished reading this masterpiece without watching any movies. Nick started seeming a trusty protagonist and ended up as another flawed human in the story. Gatsby was 2 pure 4 this world.
Nah, he had his issues too.
10/10 would recommend.
This is very well written. Love it
don't forget, nick is the most honest person he knows.
seems like a pretty humble guy
Hahaha, yeah, those types of dudes are always super trustworthy!
@Red Ensign The reason for them to believe they are honest may be that they didn't realize their own flaws. No person is perfect, but some believe they are.
@@tzuyuhuang785
But wouldn't someone hyper awarw of their own flaws also know their own strengths? And if one such strength was honestly wouldn't it then be accurate?
@@lastmanstanding7155 Nick is most certainly not aware of his own flaws.
I don't think it's meant to sound self centered, Nick saying that he's the most honest person he knows is meant to make the reader aware that compared to everyone else he is the most honest, meaning that no one in this book is honest. Everyone is a lier.
Can’t believe I liked that old sport!
Old Sport -Old Spice tomato tamato
Playboyyrocky lmfao
HAHA
@@Playboyyrocky HAHAHA
OLD SPORTTTTT
On re-reading Gatsby recently, I was struck that Nick was very judgmental (in his mind at least), and crucially, even judged Gatsby quite harshly after their first few meetings. It seems like the novel is him overcoming his initial poor judgment of Gatsby until he realises that "he's better than the whole bunch put together". And he's so glad he told him that in the end, as that was the only compliment he ever paid him. The whole novel is like he's trying to make up for not defending Gatsby more when he was alive.
And for not condemning and voicing his observations of Daisy and Tom in the moment. Something pretty key I noticed is in that initial description of his character and how he's "inclined to reserve all judgments", he feels like he's talking more about his past self reserving judgments. When you think about it the book, while an observation on extravagant materialistic rich people and their lives, is often him passing judgement on everything he observed. He even says, after the initial paragraph on how he tries not to judge, that he has a limit, one can assume he's reached his breaking point and this book is the result of that; the result of suppressed judgments. There's guilt for not defending Gatsby, yes, as well as anger. Anger towards Tom and Daisy, this seeps into his illustrations of them, we know by the end of the events described in the book we've reached the beginning again (Gatsby dead, Nick beginning to write the book) and we can see that he was angry by how careless they were. Maybe he wasn't necessarily that judgmental in the moment, but only afterwards, after the tragedy of Gatsby's death, does he describe Tom and Daisy rather judgmentally. It's like if you knew a person was going to do a horrible thing, and this biases your opinion of them, making you unfairly judgmental of them because they haven't done it yet. It creates a sense of foreshadowing in the novel, we can see Tom's violence and aggression and Daisy's materialism and these are key traits for future events, but is it fair for Nick to describe them harshly in those isolated moments? For example, his talk with Daisy after dinner and how he feels she's guilty of "basic insincerity", are those judgments from the moment or judgments he's formed because he knows what she does later on?
The whole book is about fitzgeralds outlook on the twenties. The whole point is for you to realize that while nick was the main character technically, he was fake just like the rest of the 20s
Yall on the first page of the book he says he doesn't judge people, then proceeds to judge everyone
He kind of his. Gatsby is a delusional bootlegger in love with Daisy. Who herself is a miserable bitch married to a thuggish filandering racist named Tom. I can't blame him for his attitude, I'd be fed up to.
Nick is a tsundere, and definitely the uke of the relationship. This story plays out like a softcore yaoi.
Nick is not your friend...NICK IS YOUR FRIENDLY NEIGHBOURHOOD SPIDER MAN!.....Too much ? ..ok
Wow 254 people should feel ashamed for liking a dumb Pop culture Reference joke
@@bendover2684 at least noone should feel ashamed for liking your comment 😅
@@mikachouuu i dont get that
🎶@@bendover2684 and grab your ankles ! 🎵🎤😃
@@shizukagozen777 i dont get that
When you said "F. Scott Fitzgerald isn't the author" I half expected your to follow it up with "Zelda Fitzgerald is."
J. L. Robertson - Same. That’s what it felt like for a second.
I was waiting for that hot mic drop of saying BUT IT WAS ZELDA ALL ALONG
Same!!!
Hahahaha. No.
ME TOO!!!
So, Nick is Cady from Mean Girls?
Finally!
See; NOW it makes sense Does that make Janice as some crypto Gatsby?
@@roddo1955 Lol you know what, I think Gretchen Wieners is Gatsby. She has AMBITION. And her hair is full of secrets. But Janice... I think if Gatsby had had a Damien in his life he would have been fine.
More like the Ted Mosby to Gatsby's Barney Stinson.
How have I never noticed the extreme similarities between these two stories
That’s why I like Nick though. The entire idea is that none of these people, except Gatsby, are remotely likable. They’re all vain, cowardly and obsessed with material wealth. Even Nick at times stresses the amount of money his books cost and the money he wishes to make. However, Nick IS the most honest person, because he’s willing to even put himself down in the story at times in order to put the story into context. The fact that you can tell that Nick isn’t a great guy is him being honest enough to bring it across.
Don't know if I would agree.
For me, it felt like he simply lacks self-awareness, never that he is intentionaly admiting his wrongs.
But why should Gatsby be likeable though? Probably the most of them all, yes, but he is so madly in love with a very superficial person and he even knows that she is. I don't know, I don't think that's so likable.
I agree with this. I think Nick is an intuitive type of person..
@@riotgrrrl8807 I think it is worst than that. Gatsby is in love with an even shallower imaginary version of a superficial person.
If you think about it, there are exactly two hints at a bit of complexity in Daisy:
1) That, as a rich married woman in the 1920's tied to a vain man, she is frustrated by how little point her life has and makes of her own superficiality an armor (as she learned her newborn baby was a girl, she imediately hoped she would be a fool, because that's the only way she could find any happyness in life).
2) while currently unhappy, she can't bring herself to deny that she once loved and was happy with Tom, even as she is planning to leave him. That's kind of a mature realization.
Gatsby couldn't care less about what she really is, faults and hints of complexity, Daisy is, for him, just another thing he needs to play the part he envisioned for himself, like the perpetually unopened books.
@@edisonlima4647 Very good point. What she says about the baby girl is actually the quote from the book I remember the most. I'm glad you brought it up.
Nick states he is "the most honest person I know." That's not saying he's honest, just more honest than the people around him. I caught that when I read it way back in 10th grade.
Exactly. He wasn't preasing himself
Which still very odd thing to talk about himself.
Just simply consider this: there are two people in trouble as you know. Look at how much private information each person knows about each other, when the one doesn't really tell anything about (I need that information because I don't have. But never tell me the contents of that in detail just tell me if there is or isn't). Compare the amount of information each person know. For example: I wonder how much he knows about me through what. The more important here is through what. Was that a legal means by him/herself e.g. posting, publicising at own will? Or illegal other means that could cause the spark? Does she even know that what he knows, when he knows everything about where she was and what she thinks etc? That would help the understanding.
exactly
@@hulamames8650 it wasn't even too much about himself. I saw that as him trying to tell us that everyone is SO dishonest, that hes the MOST honest person he knows.
Nobody:
Absolutely no one:
Dr. T. J. Eckleberg, Occulist:
👁 👁
Funsyze i hate that this made me laugh so much lol
lmfaooo
LMAO
this made me laugh lmaoooooooo
No one for love but you have a woman for sexual exploitation and your life going on, that is all. No art, in no heart. Fair.
You have to wonder about just how reliable a narrator Nick Carraway is. Gatsby is not exactly an admirable person; he's a liar, he's involved in criminal activity (which was how he gained his wealth); he sets out to win the heart of a married woman, whom he has idealized in his mind from their past love affair. Nick admires Gatsby and in the end, demonizes his cousin Daisy and her husband Tom for "ruining" Gatsby but in some ways, Gatsby sealed his own fate by refusing to accept reality.
And while talking about how Nick started to dislike Jordan when he noticed she was "dishonest" (because she lied about leaving her car door open or something), and about how he HATES dishonesty, he is the best buddy ever with Gatsby, a man far from squeaky clean.
how to accept reality when you´re so used to shape it at your will? how turn down love when it was the only thing that maked you move foward? it would be like drain the blood out of a beating heart and expected to keep it beating.
Sounds similar to my love life lol...
super pathetic
I sympathized with jay, and also my ex J...
but realized they both did things the incorrect way.
Doesn’t matter how many nice things you do if you still aren’t doing the right thing.
I’m deff not married though
Lol
Great movie though always will be .
I always thought that Nick Carraway idolizing Gatbsy for his love for a married woman was a reflection of F. Scott Fitzgerald's own immorality. His wikipedia page indicates that he had at least two affairs. So, I never thought that Nick Carraway was a good guy, he seemed to be a stand in for F. Scott Fitzgerald, who was a real piece of work.
@ComaBerenices random thought here but I don't think the FDA at the time was a good organization. Like, not thorough or careful AT ALL. Many times in the early 20th century they allowed ridiculously dangerous beverages and medications to be sold to the public (including radioactive beverages, and lash therapies that caused blindness). None of that really changed until the 1930s, and even then, they reformatted their process after the UK experienced a generation of physical deformities linked to morning sickness medication (around the 50s and 60s I believe).
Basically just saying that the whole "illegal alcohol could be dangerous, laced with stuff, or poisoned", while a fine point, definitely doesn't include the context of just how lax the FDA was at that point in time. The government regulations in place were garbage back then.
i always saw "inclined to reserve all judgments" as "inclined to not voice all judgments". He talks about having to put up with people he admittedly does not like. I took this as an example of him being judgmental, but keeping his opinions to himself. But yeah, "reserving all judgments" would imply not judging at all.
Literature, man..
Fitzgerald's use of language is deliciously precise and ambiguous. The man was penning pure gold with Gatsby.
: )
reserving means more of a synonym of controlling than not doing something. It more like he's keeping his opinions to himself
You’ve pointed out part of what makes being a writer or editor particularly thorny. It’s makes it such a joy, an indulgence for me to enjoy well wrought and subtle literature after going to battle with clients all day. There are some who would simply prefer a slightly enhanced spellcheck and believe the style of the book is completely their prerogative, even if it results in a hammer of a book that could easily have been refined to a chisel.
In part because of this, being able to stray away from being a glorified dictionary and slip into some really choice writing is among the most enjoyable things in the world for me. It’s like a warm bubble bath, sitting in front of a crackling fire beneath a soft blanket, and eating smooth chocolate all wrapped up in one. It’s comfort and indulgence.
I often feel like I need to whip out the infamous red pen and take it to books that I try to read. I even feel a little upset that they’re out there in the world like that, that it’s too late to be able to save them from that fate. With better word choice, less vagueness, and a little more or less description and metaphor, they could be on another level. It completely takes me out of the story and has dampened how much I enjoy reading now. I can’t turn my editing totally off once I’m on my own time. I suppose it’s what makes the greats, perhaps more than anything else. It’s slipping into a satin robe that fits perfectly as you slide right out of your life and into the world they’ve made. It’s one of the best feelings in the world.
Ah yes I shall reserve all judgement... for about 15 minutes. Then I am positive about that trash bag afterwards.
We actually talked about this in class not long ago. We talked about how Nick and Jordan are essentially the same person. Both are passive but in different ways. Nick is passive a exterior way in the sense that he never does or voices any objection to anything in fear of coming off a certain way. So he lies subtly. Meanwhile Jordan is passive in an interior way since she is open with her thoughts yet never really feels anything for her actions or words.
We also said that while Nick isn't perfect, he is the perfect narrator for this story. No one else would be able to tell the Great Gatsby if they weren't so judgmental or passive of others with little focus to himself. Imagine anyone else, even Gatsby, trying to write this story. It simply wouldn't work.
That's a really interesting take on Jordan and Nick. Thanks for sharing. Also, I agree about Nick being the only real conduit for this story. He's basically the perfect balance of distant and being in the thick of it all.
Thanks for sharing! 🙂 Do you mind sharing more about your class’s observations on Jordan? I really found that tidbit interesting.
If the story was told by daisy it would be cringe
@@hofhofandaway I think, like Nick, Jordan is relatively detached from what's happening around her. She is emotionally detached, as well as being literally less involved in what is happening. Much like him, she is more of a spectator in the middle of it all. But from what we see of Jordan (through Nick's, but its the best we can get), she never seems to have any serious emotional reaction to what she sees, or have any reaction at all really... she's just a passive observer. She might "act out" in the sense that she says cynical or controversial things but she never seems to be truly moved by what's going on around her. Like Nick, she's just enjoying the show
Hanneke le Roux keen observations! Loved this! Yes, I think that’s her own manifestation of elitism-she’s far above it all, she’s completely unfazed by it all. Thanks for sharing!
But it's important to remember that in the framing device Nick is writing with full knowledge of events. If his narration is disgusted by Tom and Daisy it doesn't mean that he prejudged them. He's post-judged them.
Great point. Hindsight affects a person's tone when describing past events. Especially if you've grown to love or hate someone.
Thats a really good point
exactly. one of.the messages of.the story was how Nick was naive to keep looking for the best in the others. his unwillingness to see the red flags for what they were leads to his downfall.
He wrote about Daisy in an endearing way for the most part so I'm assuming he still had a soft spot for her but was very disappointed in how superficial she was and how she got away without admitting she killed Myrtle.
i agree, and i noticed it was also neglected to mention that both quotes provided in one scene - the ones about nicks dislike for gatsby and the one about wanting to leave hope - were separated by nick’s realization that gatsby was not the one who hit myrtle
I've never looked at Nick's character very closely before. This was cool.
Yeah, I never saw Nick as a Midwestern good old boy, or even terribly likable, but I did see him as mostly an observer.
Now, I still believe him when he describes everyone else, but i don't think he's quite as passive as he wants the reader to believe.
I just learn his name now, that's how close I paid attention on him.
Read the book. He's brutal, even towards Gatsby, describing him as a "rough-neck." Did you read this in school?
@@abbyabroad I did.
Gonna be honest, I don't even remember commenting on this video. Off the top of my head, I remember Nick as a cynical journalist.
Regardless of Nick being good or bad, The Great Gatsby is a classic for a reason. Every character is bad in their own way. That's what allows people to have a conversation that lasts for years
Ehhh... Or that it's a forced reading in most literature/English classes ...
Jivan Navij it was forced to be read because it’s a classic. I just had to read it too, and I actually really ended up liking it.
@@sabytopia not that the book isn’t good but I think part of the reason it’s in the curriculum is also practicality. It’s fairly short and a teacher can get through it quick enough as opposed to a behemoth such as say moby dick. The question as to how it became a classic is also interesting. It’s all well and good in hindsight to say “well you know it’s a classic” but upon first release I don’t think it did that well at the time. Perhaps due to the subject matter a lot of ppl thought it was like a detective/ crime novel and read it that way. Someone said it’s like someone today writing really beautifully about the kardashians and so many largely disregard it. I also heard it was one of the books to be issued to soldiers during the war so a ton of copies were made and a ton of ppl read it which maybe helped with its rise in popularity. As well as some of Fitzgerald’s friends and I think daughter keeping his works alive. That’s all very simplistic and I’ve glossed over a lot but there have been talks about this subject that are very informative
And all bad in an essentially American way... It's the Roaring Twenties... the Jazz Age... the dawn of mass media, advertising and consumerism... It's all about America.
@@sabytopia considering that based on my experience american teachers often dont even try to properly teach shakespeare's plays, mark twain's stories, uncle tom's cabin for literature class, i say it's less about great gatsby actually being good but more that it is on the shorter side and being an american story that isn't that controversial to christians
But he’s writing the book after the events. Obviously he judges Tom harshly in the book, he’s seen what a terrible person he is through watching how he handles everything that happens in the book. In the movie, the “chummy” scene where they meet takes place before any of that has happened. I understand the film is supposed to be a visualization of the memoir he’s writing, hence the narration, but in my view that doesn’t mean there aren’t scenes that show how Nick behaved before his experience with Gatsby and everyone. Tom was simply an acquaintance to Nick, his cousin’s husband, and although he may not have loved him or anything, I certainly don’t think he developed the disdain for Tom he shows in the book until after watching how he treats Gatsby, Myrtle, etc, who Nick didn’t know before.
This.
It should be remembered that Nick is upper class himself.
At the beginning of the story he feels closer to Tom and Daisy (because of class solidarity) than he does to Gatsby.
The story tracks the reversal of his perspective.
When I first read this in high school, I was totally on Nick's side because I was influenced by the movie but even then, one thought came to my mind "Why is Nick not doing anything?!" Even if this was all in hindsight, he could have done so much to prevent various tragedies from happening. Nick isn't innocent, he's a flawed man. The whole book felt like Nick trying to cry out for another chance to save Gatsby with clear fire in his eyes against those who wronged Gatsby.
Nick isn’t flawed. He’s a spectator watching this drama unfold. Daisy and Tom? There’s your flawed characters.
6:50 wait what? Nick has told us these things about Tom-because these are things about Tom! When you’re reading a book, which The Great Gatsby was(a book), you learn things about the character. Are you - what?!
15:01. Did you read the book?! Nick IS one of the few honest people he’s ever known because in this world, these people are shallow and superficial. And after Gatsby is killed, Jordan skips town.
@@randomkeir Inaction is itself an action - if you see something bad but refuse to act, that is a choice and thus an action.
If you see someone about to get hit by a truck and have the time to act but don't, you're responsible for that person being hit by a truck. Nick happens to see a WHOLE LOT of approaching trucks.
I've always thought of it this way: Gatsby is Nick's manic pixie dream girl, and Daisy is Gatsby's. A lot of the storytelling plays with the way those perspectives interact and influence each other, somtimes seeing Daisy through two lenses of distortion, and somtimes with Nick being able to understand that Gatsby's fantasy doesn't match with reality but without seeing that he does the same. In this way I find it an intresting story to read. I do wonder what a truly uninvolved and unbiased version of events would look like.
Good point.
Really the story itself isn't that interesting.
It's rather the romantic lens through which Nick perceives Gatsby's romantic quest which casts an enchanting light over everything.
As for the “chummy” meeting between Nick and Tom in the movie that so sharply contrasts with Nick’s first judgments of Tom in the book, I like to think that Nick did not realize the extent of Tom’s wickedness at the time of their initial meeting in the movie. Nick is writing the book after all the events are said and done. In hindsight, he is able to introduce these characters with the opinions he formed about them over the course of the book’s events, not just his initial judgments (or lack there of).
You are exactly right. We are not reading Nick's daily journal, we are reading a memoir of sorts. If the implied author prefaces past encounters with current interpretation of them, that is to be expected.
Good point!
They did largely fail to correctly portray Nick’s character in the movie. However, I believe that the greatest failing of the movie is that it shows what Gatsby wrote in the letter Daisy received the night before her wedding with Tom. It shows Gatsby confessing that he was penniless. This defeats the entire purpose of the movie. If Daisy had known he was poor, she never would have gotten back with him.
Yes, I did feel that the movie buys into the fantasy of a love story between Daisy and Gatsby to much... While reading the book, I never really believed that these were star-crossed, ment to be lovers.
Wait, really? I've watched the movie several times and have never been able to read what's on that letter. It's just a lot of very blurred text.
Writer Shard Yeah, it happened near the end. It shows a flashback of Daisy in the sky and a strip of the letter that says “penniless”
Yeah 100% i feel like they should have just had him lie in the letter saying he can't come back bc he was sad of his parents dying.
Suppose that the hunch already turned out to be truth when all the woman's emotional reactions were poured from the other as if she wanted him in the same way he craved, which is untrue due to the simple facts that there wasnt anything that sincerely attracts to interest her enough to last, how would you verify if that is the truth of the emotion? The answer was her uncertainty in mind because she postponed the procedure to verify who you are (until that time she never looked for you for some reasons that were too intimidating), leaving space for her doubt to prove something crucial but she thought that was not the precise time to prove by his own reactions until that striking moment starting to signify the interrogation for her parents. How would you avoid that conviction?
His name is Care-away. This and the last line of the book shows us all you need to know about the character. "So we beat on..." Nick and Tom and Daisy (old money) are the boats that beat on, without a care in the world. They leave a trail of destruction in their wake- Gatsby, Myrtle (new money or poor).
That’s a wonderful theme to point out.
The "boats that beat on" are not Tom and Daisy, whose enormous wealth protects them from all consequences and makes possible their "vast carelessness".
No, those boats are ours, and Gatsby's, and even Nick's - any and all of us who believe in the American Dream, and yet mistake it for money.
That’s a great observation...👌🏻
Nick wasn't old money, he was middle class. His distant relatives are old money, but his own family was middle class.
@@Cinnogirl He was more than middle class. His father runs a chain of hardware stores, has an office with a big painting of their line's founder, and his rich enough to fund Nick's attempt to get into bonds for a whole year at least. Nick himself went to Yale alongside some of the richest heirs in America.
They're certainly not Buchanan rich. But the Carraways are pretty upper-crusty.
This whole book is about nassissistic people loving other nassissistic people. There are no heavenly creatures here.
TH-cam: Why Nick is not your friend?
Me at 3 am: Hm, I guess I've always been curious about this? Why is Nick not my friend?
The first character that newly-arrived Nick meets is a stranger who asks for directions. Nick acknowledges that having created confusion in a stranger about who he is, or might be, can be rewarding. That is the theme of the novel. Appearances obliterate reality.
Gatsby's social inferiority has prompted him to start creating an entirely false new social identity in order to recover the girl who threw him over for a better catch. This notion is his disease, as he has failed to notice that the girl loved the idea of a better catch considerably more than she loved him.
He has succeeded brilliantly in repeating the past, but has let love (a form of OCD) blind him to the painful judgment that Daisy is no less vulgar, and possibly less human, than the yah-hoos Gatsby wants to impress, And having now burst that lifelong bubble, Tom comes round to burst Gatsby's other bubble (an air mattress) on which he is lounging in the pool.
Nick decides that coming to NYC was a mistake rooted in that pleasurable memory of the stranger asking for directions. He returns to his roots hoping to hide from the awful reality.
Great analysis. I'd never really given much thought to the stranger asking Nick for directions, but I think you're absolutely spot on!
"The first character that newly-arrived Nick meets is a stranger who asks for directions."
Uh...wrong, lol. The reader is never told whom Nick meets first after arriving, although the Finnish woman who looks after the house and prepares meals for him is mentioned ahead of the stranger who asks directions.
"Nick acknowledges that having created confusion in a stranger about who he is, or might be, can be rewarding."
Lol, wrong again. From page 6:
"How do you get to West Egg village?' he asked helplessly.
I told him. And as I walked on I was lonely no longer. I was a guide, a pathfinder, an original settler."
To any competent reader, this illustrates an event that comforted Nick by making him feel like a little less of an outsider (he is at least familiar enough with the area to help someone else). The claim that he deliberately confuses the man and takes pleasure from having done so is nowhere validated by the text. It is pure fan-fiction, as is the rest of this analysis.
Ben H. you don’t think it’s odd that someone would declare themselves a guide after being able to give directions once in a place they just arrived? he wasn’t confusing the stranger re: directions, he was taking pleasure in the confusion of his identity as a newcomer vs established person in the area. someone sees him as a pathfinder once and he takes on the false persona. sound familiar????
@@lindzytart
A guy asked him for directions. He told him. He then described his feelings. He FELT like a guide. There is literally not one word to suggest that he took pleasure in confusing the man. It is something that YOU are reading INTO the text and is therefore fanfiction. If you have some reason to believe otherwise then refer to the line IN THE TEXT which you are citing as evidence because THE TEXT is actually pretty important when analyzing THE TEXT.
@@Alexie-yc5ww bruh first off, breathe, calm down. he didn't take pleasure in confusing the man. he took pleasure in the alteration of his identity via this gesture, which is literally what the entire book is about. please READ and process comments BEFORE YOU respond, this must be why you have a hard time engaging with literature lol. BE SAFE and wash your HANDS
Is it possible with Nick being an unreliable narrator and so tortured by Gatsby’s death and he events surrounding it, that he added in the “worth the whole bunch of them put together” because that is what he WISHES he had said and suffered from depression because he realized he was complicit?
Who are the ones henry talking about ....
Yes.
It may be he felt that he felt he could have prevented Gatsby's death if only he had been able to assert himself more, and he overcame a disabling sense of guilt by becoming enraged at the way Tom and Daisy had behaved.
I'll attempt to counter one of your arguments with an alternate possibility. Yes, Nick tells us straight away that he was raised to reserve judgement, to see the best in others at all times. However, as you mention, an older Nick is writing this story, and I don't think that this quality is necessarily true of Nick, the narrator... the person that Nick became. As the events of the novel unfold, 'young Nick' seems to struggle with this, the desire to see the best in others and reserve judgement, more and more. He becomes quite disillusioned and jaded, observing the horrors of human nature.
So, Nick's description of Tom does not necessarily render him a hypocrite, as 'young Nick' might not have described him in such a way at that time... it's an older Nick, our narrator, who is of course well aware of Tom's abhorrent true nature, that gives us such a description.
Katie E this is the one chief
Yes. There we go. Thank you.
She neither. Nor the club party goer. I think Daisy was a virgin onward. The headwig dreging moment was very unpleasant sight
@@MondayNightFriend That's what you are. Aren't you?
They are finished image when she remembers the apron with plaits all the childhood image exhibited by the edge of that frame, darkened by blind and what he intended to make her think as if she holds any memory like that lol. There was't anything more and more watching Joey's ones for a long time in reality, so how would you explain the moment with her kids when that time was less than nothing, just innocent, even barely for the purpose of childcare when sincerely. Or was it what he wanted to see through her face that reminds him of that childish nature as he described. Well, is he wanted for the crucial mistake backfiring lol.
The two biggest misconceptions I ever see about Gatsby is that one: the story is about gatsby and two: the descriptions nick issues of the characters are true. Nick is completely judgemental and can’t get over the fact that in his eyes gatsby is the American dream. Nicks narration implies easily that his telling of events isn’t accurate always, for example, when he drinks at Gatsby’s party.
Can you further explain please
Zueperman sure, the first point about the novel being about nick is more simple, the illusion that it’s about gatsby is based largely off how much attention gatsby receives in the novel, and how is portrayed as a god, mystical and important, but this is because that is what gatsby is in the eyes of nick, what we read is not nicks story about gatsby, what we read it’s Fitzgerald’s telling of nicks story, which is so greatly affected by gatsby, the novel was supposed to be called under the read white and blue, to refer to the American dream, but was eventually called gatsby as gatsby is nicks idea of the American dream. The second point largely refers to a lot of good points made in the video, nicks description of events isn’t entirely accurate, for instance when he gets drunk, and his telling of the characters is no different, for starters he multiple times compares gatsby to god, when gatsby is essentially a gangster, he also portrays daisy as the ultimate queen of beauty in a lot of ways, but the reality is she isn’t. An example of nicks errors is how he draws attention to the parties of Gatsby’s and the kind words of daisy, and tries to quickly gloss over in minimal lines things like the phone calls gatsby receives, and when daisy reveals herself to be materialistic and shallow. Overall the point is nick is not honest with the real portrayal of the characters, and in my opinion the contrast between the description we get from nick and the revealing surroundings explained by Fitzgerald is what makes all the characters so distinctive. Hope this helps, also a lot of this is up to interpretation.
Ur wrong he barely knew who Gatsby until he talked to daisy at the dinner table 😂
Nick Carraway reveals his flaws almost immediately, and intentionally, in the book. You don’t mention those parts.
Yeah I'm confused too. Nick isn't portrayed himself nor presents himself as a great person necessarily. He admits to being judgemental, in spite of his father's advice. He also alludes to being a wallflower type. My English teacher literally told us he's unreliable when it comes to his judgements and recountings lol. None of this is new to me but I love TGG and hardly see videos on Nick, so I still love this analysis!
He lets on to some flaws, sure, but in such a way to be seen as "minor faults." I see it as Nick's way to humanize himself so that we, as his readers, extend him some grace and assume the best about him as the story progresses, rather than perceive the worst.
I think you're on point in saying that Nick doesn't portray himself as great person. I suppose my take is that he is, in fact, an even worse person than he lets on to be. Thanks for the comment!
Thought & Word
;)
@@ThoughtWord True, we do criticize the other characters much more than Nick; he's largely overlooked in my opinion. I'm just glad I finally have a great video that conveys my thoughts on Nick so concisely.
"Nick is the implied author -- Nick Carraway's memoir." -- great! A perfect assessment of the most important aspect of this novel.
Isnt that fairly obvious though? I mean clearly we are to believe Pip wrote Great Expectations, Holden Caulfield at least dictated the Catcher in the Rye, and clearly Charlie Gordon wrote Flowers for Algernon. The main ingredient with a first person narrator is the question of much we should trust them.
Nick Kladky True, although not all books written in first person are what would be considered fictional memoirs. I think the difference there is maybe subtle, but important. When a book is present first, for example, things are often considered to be more honest unless you make a point to have a clearly unreliable narrator. In those cases, the present tense first person narrative allows for a feeling of immediacy and tension. In a figurative sense it’s akin to claustrophobic. There isn’t the luxury of space. You don’t have room to step back and breathe to get distance from the events. Neither does the author.
But past tense first person narratives allow more room and freedom. It also allows room for adjustments to be made, justifications and rationalizations. Even if subconsciously, it’s human nature to view yourself as either the good guy in the story or the victim.
Time allows for these changes to set in and even for the writer to start to believe them. The truth can bleed between the lines, which is part of why I love Fitzgerald. He was good at those subtle choices that undercut the general sense of the narrative. It lets you see some of the turmoil in the writer’s mind, the indecision and conflict. It’s wonderfully done. He knows the narrative he wants to put forth, but the truth can leak out in descriptors and point us toward what really may be going on behind the scenes.
Like most memoirs, it paints a somewhat self-serving and flattering picture. We can only guess at what the real story beneath the narrative is, as we only know what we’ve been told by this one person, with time to shape the story as he wants.
Again, in many books this technique isn’t set apart in a hard and fast way from other first person accounts. But this story is a particularly good set piece to look toward when delving into the idea of novels as memoirs of a particular character. I’ve never thought of it specifically as being a kind of memoir, but it’s absolutely on point. I think when working with clients I’ll have to adopt this as a solid shorthand to get across the point of the different strengths of past tense first person.
I feel like Nick basically has no personality.
Pretty much, and I feel I'm the same
Same
Its because he keeps all of his thoughts in his head and speaks rarely, that makes him a shy and passive character
@@natfingerboard
Oh man. :(
F
That ending really struck me--I havent read the novel, but could it be that Nick named it 'The Great Gatsby' not because of his admiration and love for Gatsby as a friend, but due to him defining Gatsby as his personal standard of 'greatness'. Whether this be a positive and awe-striken view of greatness or Nicks lust for the superficial/blind optimism Gatsby embodied, I don't know
That's an interesting insight! I think you're on to something there.
@@ThoughtWord Thank you! And I really appreciate the video, you hit the nail on the head with perspective being everything in film
If Nick is defining Gatsby as his personal standard of “greatness” then he has admiration and love for him. It can’t be like I have standards what a “great” person should be but i don’t have admiration and love when I meet that person. It goes hand in hand.
The reason it's called The Great Gatsby is because Gatsby is a spectacle to be laughed at. Gatsby shows off his wealth flamboyantly and burns money like crazy. Nick has the manners and upbringing to fit into the wealthy social circle of the novel, but he lacks the wealth. Gatsby wasn't raised as a rich person, so though he may be rich now, he lacks the social skills to be a part of that society. Think about circus exhibits and how the spectacles are called "The Great X" That's what the title means.
He's the Great Gatsby because he represents the American dream of lifting oneself up by the bootstraps and essentially creating oneself - a self-made man.
I always wondered what the “real” story was because I assumed Nick’s story is an exaggeration.
It amounts to this. Nick is a third wheel, a go between guy who is pretending to be important. He even inserts himself into the world series fix, which is absurd.
Zap Rowsdower there is no real story. There’s only perspectives.
I would really like to read this story from Daisy's point of view. Nick (the novel) treats her like she is as deep as a cracked saucer, but the moment she admits that, once she realized her new born child was a girl she wished she would grow up a fool, because that's the only way she would be happy, that gave me a serious pause. A real fool would not know that, so her fleighty nature IS calculated.
Plus, refusing to pretend that she was never happy in her marriage was one of the few mature and clear eyed atitudes of ANY character in the novel, so she is much more complex than what Nick perceives.
@@edisonlima4647 could you argue that Nick doesn’t do this intentionally it’s just that it’s from his perspective so it’s natural he’s not going to go in deep about The nuances of Daisy, her life or any other Person outside of perhaps Gatsby?
Yes! You nailed it. Nick is trying to pander to the richest side. You have solved my irritation with Nick. I don't see why he does what he does. He goes along with his cousin's husband's adultery. He facilitates Daisy's adultery. He acts like a benevolent narrator who saw all but that's not true.
Would we feel differently about Nick if he had reservations about the immorality of his cohort? From our perspective, Nick never seems to condemn them, merely tell their story. Are we supposed to feel the same way about the Greek Gods, when we read of their tragedies? Where they go around being jealous and petty and just like Nick's peers?
Voice over sounds like Toby McGuire
Because it is Toby
The Great Gatsby is story about F. Scott himself-anyone who’s read and watched anything on the author should be able to figure this out.
He is both Gatsby and Nick. Nick is Fitzgeralds’ conscious self and Gatsby the hidden self. One might say it’s the ego vs super EGO battling it out in these two characters which are opposite versions of himself, each observing yet only one judging the other. The mystery and dichotomy is what fascinates the public and will continue to do so until we as humans figure out how to properly integrate our shadows’ projections and desires into our waking conscious every day life.
I never saw Nick as my friend, I always saw MYSELF as Nick 😂😂😂😂so many times I’ve been that awkward guy sitting on the sidelines watching the drama unfold between some of my friends. He’s very relatable to me.
Same. 😂
Kinda' sad, but also true for me.
I have often felt the same...but would I rather be the protagonist of my own (however "lame") story, or the supporting character of sb else's "dazzling" narrative? 😉
and in this way a character becomes "a friend"....or what the uploader here implies with the connection. and he is, of course, wrong, since he immediately assumes that friendship or relatability is some indicator of morality....or benevolence. How many assholes out there have friends....good friends? How many decent people have friends? People befriend those they feel kinship or camaraderie with....it's not about making friends ONLY with saints! The author does well when they write that connection....a relatable, human character. Nick IS your friend. His accounting of tales and the smattering of judgements he makes is minor next to the average human story and retelling. That's why Nick seems so innocent on the first few passes. What kind of book would this be if Nick was some complete innocent? Or some flawless entity we can't relate to? We wouldn't even believe he was IN these situations!!
same here, and no surprise that the first Gatsby scene i watched, n still remember, is the classical culminate scene at the hotel in a hot summer day, dont u call me ole sport, u shut up
My English teacher always made sure to point out his last name, Carraway, literally "care away" means that he really doesn't care about anything that happened. He always saw him as apathetic to the point of being enabling.
Yeah, he's definitely apathetic and an enabler
@@tshidi129
Huh?
How can he be apathetic when he's besottedly in love with Gatsby?
@@alanpennie8013 You're reaching he was not in love with Gatsby. He had the fascination that a member of the upper class would have with someone who comes from nothing, and not only has all the talent but managed to somehow make it to a level where they can mingle with elites. What fascinated Nick, is the same reason Daisy's husband, Tom, hated him. Gatsby represented the personification of the American dream, which the elites think is bullshit they made up and peddle to lower classes. But every so often it comes true... If you want to sit here and make homosexual projections, you simply don't get the point of the story
@@tshidi129The “nick was gay for gatsby” theory does admittedly have enough subtext to support it, but you’re right that subtext is less poignant than, well, text.
Nick may have been gay for gatsby. He might have been. But whether he was or wasn’t didn’t impact the story in much of a meaningful way, so I’ve never been much interested in discussing it.
Nick being a scorned, repressed man experiencing a one-sided love and getting more bitter about his feelings as the story continues until in an act of spite he acts as a bystander instead of preventing gatsby’s death… is an interesting concept that technically works within the parameters we were given in the text.
But because it’s so interesting, I’m pretty sure that Scott Fitzgerald would have made that the story if that’s what he actually intended. Like, it wouldn’t be banished to only subtext and innuendo, there would be at least a little more. As it is currently it’s a well-supported headcanon and nothing more.
@@alanpennie8013 Well, if you're going this route, he never made a pass at Gatsby. You can be passionate in thought and feeling and completely apathetic in action. He was incredibly passive.
My grandma always says birds of a feather flock together. That your friends are a representation of who you are. Let’s not forget that he claims to be within and without however that’s not true. He is from that same social circle as the rest of the old money crowd. He and Tom are actually good friends and Daisy is his cousin. When Tom says ignorant things Nick never corrects him or let him know that that is not acceptable. Furthermore Tom is so comfortable with Nick that he cheats on Nick‘s cousin in front of him and Nick never said anything or does anything to let him know that this is not OK. It comes to a point where silence is betrayal. His inability and or unwillingness to confront Tom signals that he is accepting of Tom’s views and lecherous behavior.
He was a friend to Gatsby. Doing favors for him without wanting anything in return. Paying Gatsby a very sincere & flattering compliment. But he’s also not brown-nosing because he doesn’t hesitate to scold Gatsby for being rude when keeping Daisy waiting. He also was there to pay his respects after Gatsby’s death. A good friend.
He definitely tried to help Gatsby get the woman he loved even if it wasn’t for the best
@@idipped2521
Nick is a very troubled person, and as much in love with Gatsby (or rather with his idea of Gatsby) as Gatsby himself is in love with his idea of Daisy.
It's all very sad.
I think Nick did take money from Gatsby as Tom calls him out in the fight before Myrtle is killed
In the end, he has 3 servants to help him, I think
Nick is judgemental and self-righteous af. Sure, his friends are a mess, but they're his friends, so what does that say about him?
This was a really great video essay. Thank you.
What are you looking at?
I’m a bit late here but could it be possible that his statement of being one of the most honest people he’s ever known be a statement about those around him? He’s aware he’s not the greatest man but compared to those around him he is one of the better ones? Just a thought
That’s what I always thought. I didn’t see it as him praising himself I just thought he was saying relative to those around him (not that that’s a very high standard to surpass) he’s a pretty honest guy
When he said “see” for a fraction of a second, I was waiting for “old sport” 😂😂😂
I'm glad someone noticed this. When I was a kid high school I noticed that Nick wasn't who he appeared to be. At first, he seems like a nice enough person, and on the surface he is, but underneath everything there's a sense of duplicity and that of being two-faced. For example, he knows everyone's secrets and keeps them from people even when revealing them could be seen as morally right.
Nick’s account is about as flawed as ANYONE telling a memoir though...hence the idea of 3 sides to every story...even amongst “the most honest of us all” whose ego would let them fully tell the truth on themselves to anyone other than themself?🤔
Wait, wait, no, you need to explicitly state the possibility that Nick is not all that sad about Gatsby and rather grateful for the opportunity this experience surrounding the man's death, as it finally allowed him to finish the book he wanted to write. And that thus, he is just another character feeding off Gatsby.
Say it to my face, darnit.
omg this is so sad :( but I love this take. thank you!
Nick know Gatsby is no good, he cheated Gatsby like we know he did, but they are best friend, right?
I stole this from some Amy Winehouse's lyrics ^^
I guess u like Nick a bit, n Gatsby too, do u?
Critically, i dont believe who make this vid did read the book. Believe me, ole sport, they are best friends.
There must be a reason the director let Tobey n Leo act as Nick n JG, they are friends irl.
The Great Gatsby was one of my favorite high school reads. I remember writing an essay on why Nick was never a reliable narrator. He was always judgmental.
“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."
Agreed
@@awesomeone2979 that's literally how people could have stopped the nazis before they claimed political power
100% not true. The darkest places in Hell are reserved for those who initiate human rights abuses. But people who maintain hypocritical neutrality when witnessing moral crises terrify us more, because we realize that we could easily be one of them without recognizing it. Monsters are rare. But people who do nothing in the face of monsters are common.
When I read Gatsby in college what I noticed and focused on in my essay is that Carroway is constantly describing the people around him disparagingly in terms of ethnic and racial stereotypes.
He hardly lives up to that opening sentence...
Well, that would have been fairly standard for the time, it was 1925 when the book was wirrten. But inso far as I can recall, Nick is never actually racist, and he seems to dislike Tom's racism.
Everyone in the story is in Nick's eyes responsible for Gatsby's death and to that extent detestable.
And of course this is true of himself, a difficult thing for him to face.
I thought I was the only one who thought Nick was a self-righteous person who thought he was better than everyone in the novel
and even though i know it all i love him deeply
Is it a sort of self-deprecating humor? Does she really?
Never trust someone who claims to largely be honest.
Because that is there first lie and most likely one of the most important lies they`ll ever tell you.
Sure some might be more honest then there own good, but this is more so due to a lack of self-restraint then that of a virtue.
This book is the definition of a literary masterpiece.
Reasoning why the great gatsby is still relevant the school system lol
I actually never did like Nick, even the first time I read the book. The part that sealed it for me was when he made sure to bring about a meeting of Daisy and Gatsby, and then helped them cover up their affair. Tom may have been a jerk, but so was Daisy, and I just found that really odd that a "moral" character like Nick claimed to be would do that.
juliababyjen Jenny Nick was a pimp for Gatsby and Daisy.
I know I’m a little late, but to add on Nick’s spotty morality: I found it strange that in an attempt to get closer to Tom, he hung out with him AND his mistress. What a betrayal to his “beloved” Daisy! It just shows that Gatsby was the most earnest of them all
It just shows that none of the commenters here remember what it was to be young and hopeful and confused.
Wait, people actually thought Nick was a decent human being? I always thought he was really boring and kinda horrible.
man i thought he was cool 😞 this video and these comments opened my eyes
On my first, totally clean watch without having read the book or indulged any analyses of it, my impressions of Nick were that he was a perfect narrator for a story that was not about himself, were Nick to be a character in this story, told from another person's perspective, we would have rejected Nick as a boring character, or particularly unappealing for his passiveness. This works in Nick's favour for him to be the narrator, though. It's like having a particularly boring or uninspiring parent. They're not a compelling character, but they have their place as the most important person in THIS story at THIS current time.
ah yes....if it bores you it must be horrible, right? boredom is a sin committed by those in the 7th circle of hell if I recall.
Idk I still think he’s a fascinating character. Probably because he’s played by Tobey Maguire lol.
@@RealHajimeHinata
He's a flawed sort of person, but his unselfish love of Gatsby is touching.
Who else is watching for their upcoming English exam
Props for doing your research!
I actually liked the anachronistic music and color pallet of the 2013 one; it gave a real energy and vibrancy to the scenes
Moral of the video: Take more time to judge yourself before others.
Comments: Let's all continue giving our thoughts on Nick.
DaydreamerLoR hold up is nick rarely speaks or gives his ideas or thoughts of the story could it be that he is judging his own actions? Is he trying to be the fine gray line between the characters?
Well done, old sport!
Nick is clearly haunted by Gatsby’s friendship. He wrote the novel as “what became of Nick” to cope with “the young Nick” and what took place. This reminds me of “speak now or forever or forever hold your peace.” Speak up
We all are Nick fyi , one way or another.
Nick: “I missed the part where that’s my problem.l
Now I’m imagining a version of the great Gatsby where nick is doing all these things over drinking, actively cheating, even omitting the truth from gatsby all while narration is playing from the book.
Or maybe he knew that Jordan was married all along, but pretends to find out at the end to make her look like the hedonistic and shallow one. Like the classic manipulative and narcisstic tactic of "they're the problem, not me." Controlling the narrative to make himself look like a saint compared to everyone else, or acting like he's the only sane man when he's really just as fucked up. Also he knows that the reader will judge him for it, and he can't handle his own medicine. Having readers judge him for his transgressions is what he tries to avoid the whole book because he doesn't want to get judged like how he judged everybody. Which is why he paints himself as a passive obsesser, but in reality he directly interrupts their drama and acts opionated and belligerant. Of course then it wouldn't really make sense for him to be a confidant as they wouldn't trust him with their secrets and start oversharing randomly if he goes off on them like that. Personally I think when he calls himself an honest person he admits that the created a "trustworthy" persona which is fake and manipulative. He's acting like he's honest to get them to open up to him, all so that he can get inspired to write his book and ultimately make money off of their problems. He's sort of being facetious with the reader and admitting to his audience that he's using people to get what he wants but it's all just an act. The book is all about the American Dream and how it makes people act fake and selfish in order to achieve their goals. How they delude themselves into thinking either their "long lost love" is real or their "honesty" is sincere when it's not. So Nick empathises with Gatsby's delusions and genuinely feels regret for everything in the end. He gains self awareness that he's terrible and everyone else is too. He writes the entire perspective and heavily implies that he's a bad person too because of his moment of clarity in the end. Nick is basically an author insert of Fitzgerald so they share the opinion that the American dream brings out the worst in people and makes them toxic. Sorry for the massive wall of text I should've just offered my own theory in a different comment, but yours is an interesting interpretation and I wanted to offer my own.
This comment section is making me remember the discussions I had in school about the book. For some reason I feel so smart understanding what they mean because in my English class we came to similar ideas/conclusions.
Nick is just secretly and hopelessly in love and/or obsessed with Gatsby and extremely bitter and angry and broken and almost driven to insanity because he knows he will never have him.
I always thought he was gay lol
No
@@tshidi129 Yes
@@MajorJack92 Let's ignore all subtext and misconstrue people's behaviour
The 2023 wattpad version of the great gatsby 💀
You knew he was questionable on both accounts when he participated in his brother in law cheating on his cousin and then agreed to facilitate his cousin’s cheating. And Nick participated in both these ethically wrong activities with an unsettling doe-eyed innocence which can only be heavy rationalization, ie mental revisionism. “Good people” don’t do any of this. He chose to go to parties, to set up dates, to hide grave information, to be disloyal to his cousin in the name of male brotherhood on both accounts (not denouncing her husband’s cheating and then setting her up with some gangster drama). All this so he can feel included in the action.
The worse is I know people like that.
Great video this guy needs more credit
Plot twist: Nick drove the car. That's why he felt so guilty and fell into a depression!
......what are you talking about? Did you say she was in relationship with anyone?
You said you didnt know anything about her, no relationship or contact whasoever. Another lie?
@@hyekang3850 Did someone posted comments for the wrong video? :D
@@madisoned bro what is that person talking about... sounds like they caught they're s/o cheating and responded to you by accident??
“Back then, all of us drank too much. The more in tune with the times we were, the more we drank, and none of us contributed anything new.”
Who sent that salmon vibe?
Nick doesn't even like Tom and Daisy yet he hangs out with them. He didn't have to, they weren't close to begin with. I think Nick enjoys being part of their circle because they are rich.
Oh yeah. There's definitely status envy.
@@ThoughtWordDid you read the book?!
We really don’t know much about Nick or his character, all we know is what he tells us about him. Really the only description we are given on his character is what he tells us about the advice his dad had given him and him believing himself to be an honest man.
I watched a few of the movies and the one thing about his character I took away from them on their own was that he was used as a blank canvas all the time. Without reading the books, one could believe bin to be as artificial as the voiceless and faceless silhouettes so many stories use to appeal to the reader. I never really saw him as a character in his own right on screen. He just existed.
@@Arcaryon
On screen he's pretty much a camera eye.
In the book he's the same sort of romantic fool Gatsby is.
Maybe the bigger fool since he so adores Gatsby, particularly after Gatsby is killed.
I never thought Nick was that great. He was on board with breaking up his cousin’s marriage. He had such disdain for Tom’s brash, clumsy attempts at genuine friendship. He judged them both quite harshly and enabled Gatsby’s self-destructive streak.
I dont understand why he is discussed here, when I was talking about my doubts on the vibes. Who sent the very first vibe?
The whole book is tainted by Nick’s emotions.
One noticeable example of how the reader doesn't fully see all of Nick was through his implied tryst with Mr. McKee. Fitzgerald created a narrator with deep depth. Thanks for the great analysis!
That's an excellent point. It's incredibly vague and euphemism intensive, as if Nick is compelled to tell the story but doesn't want to reveal too much. When teaching the novel to my high school students I dub that lesson "Nick Carraway Might Be Gay Day."
@@ThoughtWord Wow! Thanks for the quick response. That sounds like an amazing lesson. Although I have always wondered how that interpretation gels with his relationship to Jordan and "the girl out west"
@@lcardwell640 I have a bit of a hot take on that too, actually. Jordan is a girl trying to be her own person in a man's world (single, professional athlete, etc). Tom holds her in some contempt for this very reason. As for Nick, it's interesting to note that, upon meeting Jordan, he describes her in surprisingly masculine terms (a "young cadet"). Thus, I think he's not really attracted to her for her "womanly" qualities. He actually does the same thing with his supposed fiancee out west, talking about her "mustache of perspiration" when she plays tennis. There's also some scholarship that's been done (which, admittedly, I'm not totally convinced by) which suggests that Jordan is a lesbian and that her relationship with Nick is less about romance and more about a mutual understanding and nod towards their respective "closetedness."
@@ThoughtWord I still think Nick was a beard for Jordan and Daisy's affair. Tom doesn't care because Jordan isn't a man and therefore not competition.
"Morbidly Alcoholic, Insomniac, Fits of Anger, Anxiety, Depression." LOL hey it's me!
No interest whatsoever, just dont be unpleasant. Are you interested in her?
My biggest issue is that DiCaprio is too convincing. So much of what makes Gatsby a compelling character is the feeling that the closer you get to him the less you truly KNOW about him for certain. Even Meyer who knows him for so long is taken in by the wealthy Midwest family story. What Redford embodies so well is a sense of everything being a mask and a front. In the 2013 version, Nick has a nearly throwaway line about his story being absurd, but Leo sells it too convincingly to really be sold on this. Even as a Midwesterner with a bias, he comes across as too Midwestern nice without enough aloofness.
Nick is an embodiment of the lost generation. He is incapable of action and spends the book watching people do things. At one point he says that he watches girls and in his mind he follows them home and they look at him before going into their house. In his FANTASY he does not speak to them; he’s that damaged and incapable of contact. He is close to thirty when he moves to New York, yet he has to get the approval of his whole family before he can go. He clearly has some sort of sexual encounter with Myrtle’s male neighbor at the party but doesn’t address it-the only ellipse in the story ends with him in the man’s bedroom in his underwear. There is a lot of subtext to Nick that you don’t pick-up on when you read it in high school.
Ok this hits different. I can't argue with this, but while it's a bad adaptation of the classic, it's a really great movie, atleast to me
It just took me one chapter to realize that Nick is a very judgemental character.
I always thought Nick was nosey and judgemental. Like the dude was sometimes involuntarily the 3rd wheel and it was kind of annoying.
A passive character who never makes any choices himself and has no personality? Its the roll Maguire was born to play!
Oh dang he needs to be rushed to the hospital to handle that burn. Ouch!! 🤣 Unapologetically savage!
He has a personality. That is an observant more than someone who takes action
You act like you know him personally
3:36
So what you mean to say is that Nick’s daddy said “Check your privilege, ol sport”
Basically. Something Nick only sorta, kinda but mostly doesn't succeed in doing.
The point is that Gatsby puts Daisy up on a pedestal when she isn’t worthy. Gatsby is only great in the sense that he believes in her purity and goodness and piety, and therefore strives to make his relationship with her pure by erasing all loyalty/allegiance to Tom. But that is impossible. A woman cannot completely deny a man she had a child with, unless she can admit that she was a completely heartless superficial idiot. Which she may well be. But the point is Gatsby is a dreamer. He is naive. He asks too much of Daisy. He is a romantic. And he will do anything to recreate the dream he constructs in his head. And when it falls apart the world comes down around him.
It is a tale about expectations verse reality. If Gatsby had have been more humble he would have seen Daisy for the pea brained whore she is, and accepted her as she is, and whisked her away without all the confrontation and drama.
The narrator, Nick, gets attached to the romantic vision that Gatsby constructs, and the sad consequences that are brought forth as a result. He chooses to venerate Gatsby as great instead of seeing clearly Gatsby’s flawed approach to life. An excellent lesson in the dangers of subjectivism.
How could you possibly call Daisy pea brained when she never got a true voice in the entirety of the novel (apart from the little extract where she told us of her predictions of her daughters future in this male dominated world, which was quite perceptible at the time.)
I agree. I’m not sure Gatsby truly loved Daisy (the ideal or the reality.). He seemed very obsessed with drama and attention seeking. If Gatsby and Daisy truly loved each other and wanted a life together, it would have been easy enough to have it. Gatsby cared more about drama and confrontation, “erasing” Daisy’s marriage to Tom out of their love. They could have discreetly left town, initiated divorce proceedings, and lived happily ever after. Instead Gatsby wanted this big, vainglorious, public show.
I see how this frustrated (and ultimately alienated) Daisy. Daisy was trapped in a loveless marriage with a cheating husband who took her for granted. She had a child with him. In that time it was difficult for a woman to leave a marriage and stay “respectable.” Even if hubby was a monster. Daisy probably first saw Gatsby as a romantic “second chance.” Then she realized he was more about garnering publicity and an “audience” for his “starring vehicle.” Nothing against Gatsby but that was a kick in the teeth for Daisy.
A Masion I love this interpretation! Gatsby absolutely wanted the drama.
He wanted the satisfaction of seeing Daisy tell Tom she was leaving him for Gatsby.
I still love Gatsby though ☺️
Daisy was not a whore.
Fuck your slutshaming and misogyny.
Again dont even try to drift away from the first point and there was nothing in the golden rules she ever broke, because this is simply the problem of the communication structure which doesnt signify who is saying what among those hundred thousand wordings, no privacy agreement in person, no responsibilities after, I suspect the confusion by a number of multiplying different narrations that seem to blur the point trying to hide something behind again. I never trust the narration literally and the confusion of references makes all the things just to be remembered as an impression that someone is trying to tell who did something, but I never recollect myself reading or desire to read the mind of those characters the book spread upon me.
I just saw him as mostly a spectator who just let everything happen
I had similar thoughts when I watched the movie after reading the book. Nick seemed way more downplayed in terms of his narcissism in the 2013 flick. I still liked Tobey Maguire’s performance but something told me that this was a different Nick than the one I read in the Fitzgerald novel.
Yeah, he seemed too innocent. Nick was passive, but he wasn't innocent.
I imagine the novel could easily be Nick's reflection on things he wishes he did differently or actions he tries to justify to feel less guilty about Jay's death. He wants to be the good guy to cope, so he describes himself setting Jay up with Daisy to give him the hope he always dreamed of; he makes sure to tell the story of Myrtle and Tom's affair to make her someone who maybe deserved to die; and he reflects on the role of wealth in all this to say that he regretted chasing wealth and ending up in New York, in the company of the man whose death would break his world.
Poor bastard!
He was left to spend the rest of his life wondering if he could have saved his hero.
I think Luhrman showed the emptiness of the American dream; "All these bright, precious things fade so fast. And they never come back" to make us beautiful, little fools 🤥 But then, I did my best to repress his frame story - I really didn't like that one. Anyway I watched it as a story emptiness and hollowness - I guess I didn't see Nick in the kindhearted way you did - I guess that tells more about me than your sensible critique of Luhrman's choices! ♥️
What always struck me is how the two most authentic relationships Nick has in the novel, to Daisy and Jordan, he willingly pushes aside to get closer to Gatsby, whom he sees as a mentor. If he idolizes a man like that, what does it say about him.
that he's in love with Gatsby....
@@andywellsglobaldomination
Exactly.
I'm unsure why this video doesn't mention this rather important fact.
Not only was Nick in love with Gatsby he believed Gatsby's quest to recreate the past the way it ought to have been was praiseworthy and noble.
He was a romantic fool, in an extremely American way.
It may be that Gatsby wasn't the Quixotic figure that Nick portrays him as.
He may have been rather nasty.
There's some evidence to that effect.
Truly great analysis. Hadn’t considered that takeaway, that even the “good and honest” people can be sucked into the rush of money, fame, etc. Thanks for making this
I’ll only say this: I LOVED this movie for what it was. I haven’t read the book, but after watching this video I do want a more accurate portrayal of Nick in all his complexities and flaws, as it seems the point of Nick’s entire role in this story is completely lost in this adaptation. But, having been ignorant of this when I watched the film, the movie itself was wonderful and tragic and it told a story I extremely enjoyed.
I do, however, understand the significance of what it says about current society for the film industry to so easily gloss over and repackage a narrator so that he is watered down and much easier for the average person to swallow. This film was very good to me, but it could have been great had Nick been more accurately represented, and deeper narrative than “Gatsby just lost himself to the American Dream, poor guy” could have been explored. I wouldn’t call it a waste, since I don’t at all think the end result was garbage, but potential was lost here for sure. I hope a better adaptation is made in the future.
Is it a mischaracterization if that's how Nick wants to see himself? The movie is told from the perspective of nick recounting his story, naturally he would portray a "sanitized" version of himself and others would be characterized with the very defined traits he sees them with.
Nick is the type of guy who would have shared a Facebook meme that says "One thing youll learn about me? I hate liers!"
I always hated this book, before reading it as a nihilistic and cynical look at happiness as hedonic pleasure. Mostly because I fully trusted Nick as a narrator and supposed that he was supposed to be seen as the moral compass for the novel. After watching this video I like it much more as a cautionary tale about vices, narcissism, and your own ability to make a bad situation worse. Great analysis!
It always shocks me to hear when people say Nick is a nonjudgmental and honest person! Like, HELLO, the first chapter is just him being edgy and self-aggrandizing about how he’s oh-so open-minded and doesn’t judge anyone. Has anyone who isn’t judgmental ever had to say it that many times?
16 years ago I wrote my AP English essay about how Nick is just the absolute worst character. Yes, everyone around him sucks too, but, he enabled them all to suck and not try to stop them. Great video!
If know the history of Fitzgerald and his life you find that he plays both Nick and Gatsby in his own life and that it is no difficult to believe that Nick is just as egotistical and disassociated with his own involvement in the misery of others. Fitzgerald is each of his protagonists and different points of his life
An excellent and accurate point! Thanks for sharing!
I like finding inconsistencies in the novel with Nick's narration, where some parts just contradict each other. For example, when he says he's the most honest person he knows, the previous paragraph was talking about him leading on an ex-lover from another town. Then small details like him saying he's gotten drunk twice in his life, but drinking multiple times throughout the book. There was one part where he says he doesn't see Gatsby for "several weeks" after going to his house with Daisy, but then you find out that it's been about 2 weeks since he originally met with Jordan and talked about Gatsby. Nick is constructing a narrative that is very clearly not the absolute truth of the situation
Ugh I'm about to read this book for the third time😂😂😂
It never gets old, there's so much to unpack with it and it's like Everytime I read it I see it from a new perspective. I read it in the 10th grade, then two summers in a row, studied the film for two film classes, and I'm probably going to read it again this summer so thank you so giving me another way to experience this story.
I stopped at the fifth time... or sixth time... I forget...