I felt similarly when I first read it. Give it about 5 years, read it again, and then tell me you don't love it.

Watch Crash Course:
Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw9Au9OoN88
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn0WZ8-0Z1Y

Edit: Prerequisite? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSYw502dJNY

Kip is right, if all you got from the book was a story about a guy who had a lot of parties and his neighbor who crashed most of them don't feel bad. After experiencing some more life you may get the deeper story beneath it, in terms of why the characters did what they did and how a 90 year old book is still relevant today. Then there is the literary stuff like whites and yolks allusions on alternating pages and what not, which you will only enjoy if you are literature nerd.

Also side note, who is jordan baker, was she a friend of daisy? I never got that, in retrospect I probably should have read this book in swedish :(

It's pretty good, but I don't really get all the fuss about it either. I did like the underlying commentary about the author using Nick Carraway. Reminds me of Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried in that it's a story about writing a story.

If your flag were palette swapped I would have +fragged just for that.

Ask yourself whether if you had the choice, you would live Jay Gatsby's life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VEQRPm_HyA

its fucking good as shit

love that book

The reason the book is so good is because of how simple, yet complex it is. On the surface, the story idea is simple and easy to understand. But, the book can be analyzed and applied to the American dream, something all Americans have heard of. Plus, it's entertaining.

Also, do you know the historical context of the time? That definitely helps in understanding West Egg vs. East Egg.

And sometimes you take out the historical context to feel the book's majesty. Consider the last line:

did you pick up on the narrator, Nick Carraway being gay?

Personally, I don't think Nick is guy, but if you have read The Seperate Peace Gene is totally gay.

I was going to write that I had the same reaction and that you should put it away and read it again in 5 years. Then I read post #2.

In terms of why the book is "good," I can only say that opinions vary, although most people enjoy it. As the title suggests, the whole thing is basically about figuring out Gatsby. Most of the other characters are kind of boring and predictable in comparison.

Jordan Baker is a friend of Daisy's, although I struggle to remember whether Jordan's backstory is all that important. She golfs, right?

I liked it a lot because of its apparent focus on materialism. Sure, you could call it the "American Dream," but I'm not sure that the term is as relevant as it used to be (if it ever was, idunno).

lolwhat? minus fragged for posting my analysis of the narrator after writing an essay, response paper and taking part in a 3 hour tutorial for this book where I discussed similar ideas with my teacher and a university prof which they ended up agreeing to? I guess some educated few actually read in between the lines

Sounds like you didn't read it that thoroughly. You don't even have to wait 5 years to read it again and understand it. Next time you do read it(hopefully in a language that you'll better understand), read it carefully. Pay special attention to Fitzgerald's writing and Jay Gatsby. The reason so many people enjoy it is mostly due to the wonderful storytelling involved in describing one man's inability to reach his grand dream(Gatsby dreaming about Daisy). Also, though Nick plays a spectator role, we can learn just how hopeful Gatsby was through his account.

i thought he was really gay too
like really really really really gay

When I read this book in High School a guy in my class made some internal connection about religious symbolism in the book and loudly stated "Oh my god, guys. His initials are J. G. It must stand for Jesus God!" It was hilarious.

The sad fact is, most "classic" literature is actually complete trash that is not worth anyone's time. This fits very firmly in that category. Watching idiots continue to be idiots and reflecting on their musings is just plain pointless.
Same goes for Dickens, Austen, and whoever else writes incredibly outdated books that are only studied because the only people who are "successful" in teaching literary studies are those who drink the kool-aid.
Sad, but very true.

sorry that classic literature doesn't hold up to the high standards you crave in your consumed media, mr. brony.

ya but lets be real jane austin is pretty bad guys

Your post screams "I hate reading so I'm going to bash the books I am currently being forced to read in my basic junior English class." And honestly, that makes me really fucking sad. If you actually spent time thinking about them and analyzing them, you'd actually see that they have a lot of important messages that are still topical, decades or even centuries later.

This book is just full of beautiful descriptions and symbolism. A lot of theme surrounding inequality, wealth, betrayal, power, love, etc. I personally loved the idea of "unreality of reality" as Fitzgerald put it. But there's a lot more. In terms of plot, not too special, but in terms of meaning, very, very rich.

Just look into the symbolisms, the specific color used, compare "the valley of ashes" versus the rich, etc. Look at the symbolism of "dreams" and how a few of the character are "beautiful ignorant fools". That's what I personally got the most out of the book. Some people are living a false reality, I would go into detail but I would need to spoil the book and maybe some haven't read it but anyways, in short, I personally enjoyed it.

My favorite book though is Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison, and if you want to dig deeper with meanings and symbolism and all that good stuff I'd recommend that book.

it's too bad I learn this now, 4 years into my English degree...

I skimmed through and since it looks like no one answered yet, I believe she was a friend. In terms of story, she's not a MAJOR character. In terms of literary analysis, she's important, she breaks the archetype of women. Women are depicted as in Daisy's case, you have a dominating husband, submissive, etc. However, Jordan was a successful golfer, she was independent, so she broke that stereotype and that was her role in the story, to give a different view and to challenge the idea of the "beautiful fool" in the book. Well maybe not challenge, but to contrast.

jordan baker is daisy's friend n introduced nick to gatsby

Pls no a lot of the appeal is the absolutely gorgeous prose the guy did. It'd be like reading translated poetry.

I disagree with your interpretation of Jordan. She represents the "ideal" woman of the modern era, which was rich, beautiful, and successful. You can see this in the way that Nick describes first Jordan as if she was posing for an artist. I feel like you paint her in too much of a positive light; she cheated to win the golf tournament, she lies and is only concerned with herself. Also Daisy is not with Tom because he is dominating and she is submissive, it's because she values class and the comforts of bourgeois life. If anything she is destructive and is able to get away with it because she is a wealthy woman who can hide behind her money. just my thoughts though

If you guys get a chance to check out the most recent movie, note how they personified the green light by giving it a piercing sort of noise every time it flashes on the screen. It was a really nice effect.