Nick Carraway, the narrator of the novel, is the cousin of Daisy Buchanan, the woman that the tycoon intends to win back with pomp. Carraway is the poor man in the neighborhood, he works as an insurance salesman in a New York office and pays rent for that bare wooden cabin that adjoins Gatsby’s mansion, from where he can see a good part of the garden where they take the dogs. out those Roman parties and banquets imitated by Gatsby, a modern Trimalcion. Carraway will witness the fatal accident and the successive love triangles that triggered that streak of death and disappointment that led to the end of the Great Gatsby.
The Spectator on video:
We fell again into the mistake of using inappropriate photographs for the illustration of the news. This time, we place a photo of Aida Merlano in a “casual” outfit to talk about the court case that she is carrying out so far. In addition, we missed several headlines in question, but this time it was not on the web page, but last Tuesday we had four pages of the printed newspaper with question headlines, much more than necessary.
0 seconds of 4 minutes, 8 seconds Volume 0%
We did not choose the right photograph for the court case of Aida Merlano
The gas station located at one of the intersection points between the area of the mansions, the industrial area and the city is another emblematic space in the novel. It is the place of poverty, where the first link of Gatsby’s tragedy originates and with which the author manages to create a contrast between luxury and lack. The Wilsons live and work there, with whom Tom Buchanan interferes to become the lover of his wife, to whom he sets up a home in New York and, in his own way, also creates a fantasy space that that woman could never have imagined accessing due to her origin and position and social determinism. On a smaller scale, Buchanan plays with his mistress the same skit that Gatsby concocts to attract Daisy, but a skit without love.
There are two final versions of the novel The Great Gatsby. The one conceived by Scott Fitzgerald and the one that turned out to be the first edition suggested after the changes suggested to the author by the editor Marx Perkins, from Scribner’s publishing house. Trimalcion should be called the original version conceived by Fitzgerald whose title would recall the banquet given by the freed slave in Rome after him regaining his freedom (described in The Satyricon of Petronius). The definitive version was The Great Gatsby as we know it. The difference between both versions is the information that can be known about Gatsby. Gatsby’s final monologue at the Trimalchiorecounting episodes from his past, was broken up and simplified by Fitzgerald and scattered throughout the book as dosed and fragmentary information, which would make Jay Gatsby a meatier and more complex character in Trimalchio and a more enigmatic and spectral character in The Great Gatsby.
The result, the definitive version with the abbreviated Gatsby, for some readers, was a dissolved whiskey. For readers as conscientious as Edmund Wilson, executor of the Fitzgerald papers, the abbreviated form of The Great Gatsby has the warp perfectly assembled and the rest must be provided by the reader. According to Juan Forn, who compared the two versions line by line to unravel the changes, and at the time recommended making a Spanish edition of the Trimalción version (edited by Tusquets in 2018) with that climax monologue a weight of the meat is given, and bone, a more marked sense of class origin and an anchorage to the central character evoked by the narrator.
I bring this up because it was a party in Paris (1964), Hemingway dedicates three chapters of that catalog of characters from the lost generation who met in Paris in the 1920s to his friend Scott Fitzgerald. And already in the first meeting, Fitzgerald tells him that he makes two versions of his stories: the original and the one to be published. The one to publish obeyed for him to follow some “tricks” to make the story digestible and popular, more elliptical perhaps, but first, he had to make the most literary and substantial version. To Hemingway that seems like literary prostitution (and he says it to the drunken friend’s face). But Fitzgerald says that there is no betrayal or mediocrity because to get to the watered-down version you have to first go through the concentration and the verbal effort is unavoidable.
The same principle was then applied by Fitzgerald to his best-known novel. It was a kind of subsistence mechanism to soften a little the waste that was a life lived with broken hands. A life touched by wealth and fame after the commercial success of his first novel, East of Paradise (1920), in which he had spent his time at Princeton University (studies he abandoned to serve in the army during the first World War). Upon his return from the war and after his fiancée, Zelda Sayre had broken off their marriage engagement, Charles Scribner’s Sons published his first novel, selling more than forty thousand copies in the first year. So by 1925, Zelda had yielded to Fitzgerald, famous in his country. With a Daughter on Board and The Great Gatsby just published they went to live in France. In a café in Paris, he confessed to Hemingway that his novel was a commercial failure because in its first year it did not sell more than 25,000 copies in his country. Emphasizing those sales figures would not represent much importance for a novel that has been reissued since it was published 96 years ago, and that also has 4 film adaptations and is one of the modern classics of English literature, but the money or the loss of it was one of the constant obsessions of Fitzgerald and his characters.
Gatsby had been one of those mobilized to the fleeting participation of the United States in the Great War that left Europe balkanized, reports the narrator. In the war, he reached the rank of captain and got a medal. Upon returning to the United States, he found that he only had a military dress uniform. The time in which Fitzgerald places the story is 1922 and the social background that is perceived in the loose data of the book alludes to the impact of the war on people like Gatsby and the party atmosphere of the urban night. Prohibition was extended from 1920 to 1933 in the United States, prohibiting the sale of alcohol. It was still an irony and an ember of puritanism that encouraged trafficking and smuggling because in the country where there had been no battles and everyone was drunk, alcohol was banned while drug traffickers’ pipelines ran “underground” along sewage networks from Houston to Canada. One of the rumors that run among the guests at these parties is the participation of Gatsby in this and other illegal businesses. The rumor becomes one of the elements that outline the main character and envelops him in the Fitzgerald fog trick. For the native rich and reactionaries, like Daisy’s cuckolded and adulterous husband, Tom Buchanan, Gatsby’s wealth is illegal and his college education is the most distinctive feature of New York’s patriarchal order and prestige. , is in doubt. He does not buy the story that his rival has gone to Oxford University in England as rumored.
East and West (of the United States), like South and North, are parallels and meridians in US imperialist prosperity: racism, economic development, and puritanism had limits and extensions. The story takes place in the East, the coast colonized by the English, New England, where the big industrial cities and ports are, the place where the wealth is. The west is the great expanses where later, in Eisenhower’s time, the highways of the interstate system will extend, where the adventurers went in the past to make their fortune and where the unlucky, the provincials, the ranchers without manners, the upstarts who studied at lesser universities, like Carraway or Gatsby.Some of the information that Gatsby himself insists on validating against his friend and neighbor, Carraway, perhaps his only friend and peer, indicates that he made a fortune by inheriting a part of it and then multiplied what he inherited with oil and pharmaceutical businesses, and his time in Oxford it is explained as a short period of six months as consideration for his service in the war. But one of his partners will admit later that he cannot say the same thing because he knew him clean, and poor when his only property was his army dress uniform, for which Daisy, the war bride, rejects it. This partner shook his hand by linking him to some kind of illegal business and, already rich, Gatsby walked alone and insisted on winning back the heart of Daisy through luxury, who rejected him for being poor shortly after the war.
The result of this materialistic trap is well known enough to repeat in these lines. But it is still curious that the final chapter, perhaps the most beautiful of all, is a reflection on what no luxury can pay for generosity and purity of feelings. A morality that gives access to another type of lineage. Morality can be achieved without origin and without class, and it cannot be bent or bought.
in eternal luxury(2003), Lipovetsky-Roux analyzes some demystifying aspects of modern luxury. Luxury is related to the pleasures of the senses. Intensifying them intensifies experiences. To what end? With that of making them last over time. It is a contradiction, where good taste and refinement simulate the scope of beauty but are still just longing. The hypothesis that occurs to me would be that whoever embraces the social ritual of the forms of luxury tries to achieve beauty by possession, or by non-creative means. Which is just one transaction. Because the instrument to achieve beauty avoids traversing the path: it’s understanding and experience. Luxury and beauty are facades that demand to be valued by the social group. Without that value that others grant,
Perhaps art and love, transitory instruments, allow beauty to touch in its eternal transitoriness, but Gatsby never sought art, but rather luxury. Lipovetsky-Roux also compares luxury with love, in these terms:
“Luxury resembles love and its rejection of “everything passes, nothing remains”, its desire for eternity. Even the pleasure of “wasting” is not without links to eternity when it generates a present so intense that it becomes forever unforgettable. –The eternal luxury, Lipovetsky-Roux, pg 95, ed. Anagram.