This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I don't know, I just recognized the text from the Great Gatsby. West Egg is where Mr. Fancy Pants lived. I've never seen any of the GG movies because I didn't like the book.
Looking forward to it. I like Baz Luhrman's style and I remember enjoying the book (I'll have to give it a re-read).
Moulin Rouge had wonderful pacing and style. From his imdb it looks like Luhrman has done some incredible work.
Even if she DID have God's kid, that makes her high maintenance, and I have no use for high maintenance women.
She is a Jewish mother of COURSE she is high maintenance
I can't see videos...
The best thing about great literature is that every book or story has people who react to it in this way. If anyone ever tried to force me to read that colossal piece of monkey s h i t The Catcher in the Rye again, or to watch a movie based on it, beatings would surely be issued.
Clearly, you are not Jewish!
This is true. When I read "Lord Jim" in high school my reaction was it was a work of genius because nobody could have accidentally written a book so uniformally, perfectly boring on every page.
I read the Great Gatsby maybe four years ago and I found all the characters other than Gatsby and the protagonist (his name escapes me) to be completely vapid. I just did not enjoy it.This is true. When I read "Lord Jim" in high school my reaction was it was a work of genius because nobody could have accidentally written a book so uniformally, perfectly boring on every page.
Another thing about great literature is if you read it again many years later it has amazingly gotten much better. Wonder how that could be?
I suppose it's unavoidable that we force young people to read works that are way over their head: "a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?" But when I hear somebody say "I read Conrad where I was 18 and it was boring" what I hear him saying was "I read Conrad where I was 18 and I was boring."
Well, I don't get modern art. We all have our limitations.
I always figured that the vapid characters were intentionally made that way to represent the carefree Roaring 20's, but they still annoyed me. And there were too many of them to make up for the other two characters.Well, I don't get modern art. We all have our limitations.
Daisy is vapid* -- she is the hole at the center of Gatsby's donut, which is the great driving tragedy of the plot. The guests at the party are caricatures and since a party is a silly, insubstantial thing they are. But the rest of the major characters all have lots of levels and depth. Tom seems like a mere blowhard at first but at his core he's deeply depraved. Nick (the narrator) has so many different modes and levels that he's practically a real human being (amazing for a short work). Gatsby's great quest is an illusion but his backstory and character are a complicated mix of dishonor, tawdry lies, psychological overcompensation, ambition, romantic imagination, and nobility (basically: America, before we fucked it up.)
Yes, but it's not something that I like in a story. I'm looking for a richly defined central figures and then some well defined - not necessarily deeply so - ancillary characters along with those simple characters tossed in for limited needs. For stories (movies, books, whatever) that aren't giant blow 'em ups, that's the challenge for the author, in my eyes. How can a story captivate its audience if you don't care to recall the characters moving through it?
