#great gatsby analysis

[vivitalks]

Last night I saw the Great Gatsby musical. Before I went, I reread the Great Gatsby book (for the first time since 11th grade!) to get a refresher on the source material and the original story. Having the book so fresh in my mind made seeing the musical really interesting, and now I am going to do something I never thought I'd do, which is post some lengthy meta about The Great Gatsby. If you haven't seen the musical, this post may still be interesting to read, but it does contain some mild spoilers, so I leave that up to you. If you also haven't read the book, godspeed lol.

There's a lot I could talk about here when it comes to the way the book was adapted for the stage. But there's one particular thing I want to zero in on in this post, and that's the "unreliable narrator" of it all.

In the book, Nick Carraway is our narrator. He's an unreliable narrator practically by default - the idea is that he's retelling events that occurred two years prior, from memory. But even knowing that Nick is probably not reporting all events and characters with complete accuracy, it's hard to know which parts exactly are wrong, or what might have happened in reality, because even though he's an unreliable narrator, he's still the only narrator and this is the only version of events we know. We're forced to take Nick as our surrogate and take him at his word. Until the musical.

(I wondered how the show was going to deal with the fact that the story of Great Gatsby is not only told by an unreliable narrator but also by an outside perspective - generally speaking the events of the Great Gatsby aren't happening to Nick, they're just kind of happening around him. Yet he's the voice of the story, so in that way he's central to it, and I was curious how they were going to balance that fact with the fact that Gatsby is functionally the main character.

I think they struck a really good balance in the end. Nick's beginning and ending lines, lifted verbatim from his book narration, frame him clearly as the anchor of the story - I think that's the best word for it; the audience jumps from scene to scene, many but not all of which contain Nick, but we know that Nick is always going to be where the action is, or that he will at least know about it. He may not be the main character, but he's an essential character. But I digress a little bit.)

The difference between the way the story is imparted to the audience in the book versus in the musical boils down to this: in the book, Nick "plays" every character, so all their dialogue and actions, their mannerisms and the way they're described and reported, it's all informed by the beliefs Nick holds about them. Whether he means to or not, his biases paint certain characters in certain lights, and because he is our eyes and ears to the story, we have no choice but to absorb those biases.

But in the musical, every character is literally played by a different actor. Nick can only speak for himself. Nick can only tell his own parts as they happened. He may be "telling" the story, but we're watching the story. We have the benefit of an unblemished perspective on things - we can watch the events the way they actually unfold, regardless of how Nick believes or remembers they went down.

This difference - between Nick as the narrator and Nick as merely his own voice - is crucial in how the musical develops each character, some of them fairly different from how Nick described them in the book. And there's one book-to-stage change - a fairly small one, all things considered - that, to me, illustrated this difference perfectly.

There's a line towards the end of the Gatsby book. Something Nick says in narration, after his final conversation with Tom Buchanan, talking about how Tom gave away Gatsby's name and location to George Wilson (which ultimately led to Gatsby's death). Nick writes:

"I couldn’t forgive him or like him, but I saw that what he had done was, to him, entirely justified. It was all very careless and confused. They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made…"

When I read this line in the book, I couldn't help vehemently agreeing. Screw those rich assholes! Money does corrupt! Tom and Daisy ARE careless wealthy people! It was easy to side with Nick, not only because he was the only perspective on the situation that I had, but also because he said this in internal response to a conversation with Tom, who, I think we can all agree, is a major jackass and a deeply unsympathetic character.

But in the musical, this line is spoken aloud by Nick. And he says it to Daisy, in her house, as she's packing up to skip town after Gatsby's death. In fact, he doesn't just say it; he shouts it, visibly and audibly outraged at her audacity to lead Gatsby on, ghost him, skip his funeral, and then move away to avoid the fallout. Nick is angry and highly critical of Daisy. But because we're no longer confined to his shoes, we also get to see Daisy's reaction - not as Nick remembers it, but as Daisy actually reacts. And because of that, we're able to really see, and confirm, that "Daisy is rich and careless" is not the full story.

I have to credit Eva Noblezada for a phenomenal performance (duh). Daisy in this scene is emotional, grieving, and it's clear she has been trying to contain these feelings for the sake of her husband and her own sanity. She's remorseful, not that Gatsby is gone necessarily, but that she allowed herself to entertain the fantasy of running away with him, only for it to be torn from her. She is trying to make the best of her unavoidable reality. And then Nick tears her a new one, calling her careless, accusing her of destroying things and being too rich to care.

And as I watched that scene, I was no longer wholly on Nick's side. I understood that this situation was so much more complex than Nick's chastisement acknowledged. Sure, Daisy wasn't innocent, but she also wasn't the callous rich girl Nick made her out to be. She did love Gatsby. And she also had a whole life with Tom. She had a daughter. She was a woman in the 1920s! That's a kind of life sentence even wealth can't erase.

The way Daisy responded may not quite have landed with Nick (if we consider the kind of fun possibility that the musical is the events as they happened and the book is Nick retelling those events as he remembers them two years later, then clearly Nick's disdain for Daisy's actions overtook whatever sympathy he felt for her), but the musical gave Daisy the opportunity to appeal to us. The audience. Having this omniscient perspective of things allowed us to draw our own conclusions, and I found myself a lot more sympathetic towards Daisy when I could both see and hear how she responded to Nick's verbal castigation.

In the book, Nick is the narrator. In the musical, Nick is a narrator. But he's no longer the sole arbiter of the story. The audience got to make our own judgements on the events as we witnessed them. Every one of us was a Nick - beholden to our own biases, maybe, but at least not beholden to his.

[blueskittlesart]

in the nicest and most non-confrontational way possible. i feel like some of you think that anything that isn't directly openly spelled out for you within a story is "missed potential" or "unexplored." like. sometimes there are implied narratives. sometimes the point is that you as the reader are supposed to think and draw your own conclusions and participate in the story. the writers not directly spelling every little detail out for you doesn't mean that the story is poorly written or missed its own plot details somehow. PLEASE.

[sanguine-prince]

i’m sure i’m not the first to say something like this, but let me tell you about my poc-passing-as-white jay gatsby headcanon!!

for some background, in the 1920s there was an interesting shift regarding (white) skin tones. previously, tans were viewed as a sign that a person worked out in the fields, and therefore a trademark of the lower class. however, slowly after the industrial revolution, it increasingly became a representation of luxury, since the rich upper class would have the time to lounge about and sunbathe at their leisure.

i say all this to show that a poc gatsby would have the ostensible class and wealth for a tan, which would ‘excuse’ a slightly browner skin tone in the public eye.

(the 20s was also the setting of passing by nella larsen, so that’s neat.)

in my vision, he’s biracial (maybe his mother was black & his father was a german immigrant) with skin light enough to pass for white.

the fact that nick states that gatsby keeps his hair neatly groomed and cut might be to prevent it from curling up.

additionally, i think it could contrast tom’s white supremacy & his fear of poc social progress.

it would also create a deeper divide between gatsby and daisy, and once again the contrast between him and tom. in my mind, daisy wouldn’t know about it until the point where tom reveals everything about gatsby’s bootlegging etc. with jay revealing it to her in the car ride back (oops then she hits myrtle).

then, when she chooses tom and the life of comfort, wealth, status, etc that their marriage offers, she also rejects not only gatsby’s new money but also his race.

it’s a lot more thematically significant for the american dream as well—it’s still unattainable and essentially tainted by capitalism, and it also emphasizes that it’s restricted to the white upper class. social mobility only becomes available to gatsby when he disguises his racial identity.

similarly, it fits with gatsby’s identity reconstruction—the quintessential american is white, rich, and educated.

daisy and tom have that ticket into society because they have that inherent thing that he will never have—pedigree, in both class and race. that’s something that even nick has.

(in my mind, he tells nick all about it the night before he dies & nick understands as best he can and doesn’t think less of him, because it further highlights the differences between his & gatsby’s relationship v. gatsby’s relationship with daisy; namely, the transparency -> acceptance give-and-take that he and daisy never had. because of having to hide himself from daisy in order to maintain her affection, he builds an expectation that he must be someone that he is not as well as developing a transactional definition of love (he gives, and people love him as long as he can continue to give) in order to be loved. therefore, nick’s immediate curiosity and fascination with who he truly is is foreign to him. not to get too into their dynamic lmao i just think it’s really interesting.)

finally, the very last part where nick is sitting and looking at the bay and thinking about the first immigrants and their dreams and how gatsby embodied the purity and naivety of those dreams is further exemplified by his racial ‘otherness.’

and there’s,,, technically nothing in the book to explicitly refute this from what i remember!

(n.b.: it has been a hot second since i’ve read tgg, so lmk if i’ve got anything wrong!)

[expelliarmus-percabeth]

I laughed my ass off when richard said he was gatsby like bro you are nick carraway

but it's honestly so like him to prefer to think of himself as the rich, centre-of-attention, overromanticised focus of the story instead of the bystanding observator/narrator that he actually shares a lot more similarities with

[faithtrickedhope]

you know, i think people who like the great gatsby on broadway shouldn’t have to clarify that they “know it’s not a good adaptation” any time they say something positive about it. sometimes you can just like things! that’s okay! i’ve read the book, i know it’s different, but that means you can look at it as a separate story from the book. similar narrative, similar themes, but through an entirely different lens. it is its own thing! i just think it’s unfair people who genuinely like something feel like they have to preface and justify it. the musical is fun! it’s enjoyable! let yourselves enjoy it!

this goes for most media, honestly. sometimes the things i enjoy inherently kind of suck and that’s okay. people can still enjoy “bad” movies or shows or whatever without having to give a disclaimer every time, y’know?

[ihaveforgortoomany]

More Great Gatsby parallels/ comparisons in Reverse 1999 speculation (spoilers for current global story chapters)

While the Great Gatsby isn't strictly named or mentioned in the game, more focus on Fitzgerald's other work Tender is the Night as the second chapter. As seen with the last line of the novel being used in the introduction of the game we can see parallels between characters in the game (Vertin and Schneider more notably) that potentially act as not only nods to the 1920s but further explore their characters.

I may make an analysis and comparisons to Tender is the Night once I read the book (at some point hopefully)

(Aka lemme put my mountains of essays on the Great Gatsby to use lol)

Vertin

It can be considered that Vertin shares some similarities to the characters Jay Gatsby and Nick Caraway (the Narrator).

Gatsby - He is characterised by his unrelenting pursuit of his dream ("the green light") of reclaiming the past through rekindling of his relationship with Daisy Buchanan. While of course Vertin arguably pursues to reclaim the future and the truth, its easy to see the unrelenting optimism and determinism both characters share.

Optimism most seen in younger Vertin in chapter 3, blind optimism and desire to see the outside world that leads to tragedy - the Breakaway Incident. This optimism is still here in current Vertin, now backed by the suitcase fam (we love found family here)

Nick - He is the narrator of the story, our eyes into the life and death of Gatsby and the people around him. He becomes the observer of the hedonism of the Jazz Age/ 1920s through Gatsby's parties, and just like a narrator is largely unable to stop the events that lead to tragedy.

Vertin as the Timekeeper and our protagonist fulfils this role in a sense: a role designed to record the eras and "spare no feelings" mirrors Nick's own desire to remain separate to others affairs, but inevitably becomes entangled in the narrative: while Vertin is instructed by the Foundation to just watch, Vertin still has desires to seek the truth "of her own will". Vertin becomes the observer unable prevent the deaths of others, the Breakaway Incident, the countless people who have been taken by the storm.

Schneider

This is Zelda Fitzgerald, wife of Scot Fitzgerald and whose deteriorating marriage and relationship is explored in the novel Tender is the Night.

You can probably see similarities in Schneider's appearance to her, reflecting the "Flapper movement" of the 1920s.

(While she is probably the main influence to Schneider, alongside the references to the Italian mafia and the Godfather, I need to read Tender is the Night for a closer analysis)

While I don't think Schneider has direct parallels to the character of Daisy Buchanan, comparisons can be drawn with how Gatsby viewed Daisy as the American Dream, the idea that anything is possible with enough hard work and struggle - all ultimately futile and doomed.

For Vertin, this is the belief and renewed hope in the suitcase granting shelter from the Storm, however as the end of Chapter Two has showed us Vertin is more akin to Noah and his Ark than a Messiah:

While the Messiah promises the salvation of all, Noah's Ark can only grant safety to the few.

Others

This description of FMN could also vaguely reference the intial impressions of Gatsby we get before met by partygoers in Chapter 3 of the novel. ("German Spy", "I heard he killed a man")

(I placed it here because this isn't very concrete)

Summary - Have an ark of oranges

[heyyallitsbeth]

Okay so ive always had issue with people complaining about literary analysis with the whole "sometimes the curtains were just blue" but like. stop for a moment and think. just for a moment.

Why would an author bother calling attention to an unimportant detail? Theres only so much space in a book, when there's so much story to be told. Why would they single out a detail like that, when its clear that it should just be a background detail, something glanced over and not thought of.

Authors are not stupid, and theyre rarely pretentious. These details have meaning because they are fixated upon.

Why would Katherine Paterson write a whole chapter in Bridge to Terabithia about a family remodelling a living room? Because the golden room is the family's fresh start. They're starting over fresh, its a new day, a new world for them. The room isnt the focus, the characters are.

Why would F Scott Fitzgerald call attention to the green light across the bay in The Great Gatsby? Who cares about some dumb light illuminating the bay? Because its not about the light. Its symbolism. Gatsby sees a beacon every night, something that drives him forward, a goal that he so desperately wants to attain, visible, but just out of reach.

Media is not always intended to be taken at face value. Creators strive to make something their audience will think about, brew over, be inspired by, and truly love and appreciate. Its not about the curtains. It never was, and never is.

[thatboleyngirl77]

Okay, these are Great Gatsby photos, but I LOVE the contrast of black and white. It's almost the same photo, but the difference is that one of them is in the spotlight, whereas the other is waiting in the wings. I generally love this as an art concept!!

[oscar-is-wild]

maybe I'm just dumb but the cover of the great gatsby is literally so awful. like. you're telling me. that the best. classic. ever. is in THAT THING?! like bro. the blue and the black clashes. the eyes are giving cats (the alw musical). the blue doesn't even make sense??? shouldn't the cover be green??? and like the town doesn't look like any of the settings in the book. also the face's makeup doesn't even really look like 1920s makeup. i could go one about this forever

(this got kinda heated - it's just an opinion. feel free to reply with your least favorite cover!)

[transannabeth]

would you like a non spoiler list of things i liked about gatsby: an american myth since i finally got home and am processing

[maidsuokasenpai]

I consider the great gatsby queer lit and you can pry that from my cold dead hands

[rosquinn]

i love overanalyzing literature because i be looking at gatsby's pink suit nick using similes every two lines or the gay sex scene at the end of ch2 like yeah this 100% hides a fucked up metaphor for capitalism and im gonna dig up every bit of it

[boinin]

maybe not the character you're expecting a boinin analysis on after yesterday but

(src: hoshi801_)

This unhinged anecdote from Hiori's light novel part, paired with

(src: 705point8)

this charming but... somewhat far-fetched story from Karasu's Egoist Bible profile, and even

(src: Blue Lock Wiki)

this apt description of his play style...

It's hard not to think of Karasu as a wannabe Jay Gatsby.

Did he actually go to a private middle school? Is it true his dad left him and his mom for a mistress? Were he and Reo really discussing stocks in Shibuya? Is his name even Karasu??

Tell me Hiori's idolisation of him doesn't remind you of a certain unreliable narrator.

(src: hoshi801_)

I have so many more questions than before.

[twilight-zoned-out]

Things I noticed about The Great Gatsby that might help put the book in perspective:

-It takes place during Prohibition. Although the book is constantly filled with people drinking, the making and selling of alcohol was technically illegal and had been since 1920.

(Note: this is also why everyone gets mad at Daisy when she wants mint julep when they get to the hotel. Unless they smuggle in alcohol from home, it’s a ridiculous thing to ask.)

-1920′s humor included absurdism and wit, which combined humor and intelligence or ‘sharp’ intelligence. Daisy makes witty comments throughout the book. When she talks about Ferdie in a ridiculous way and Nick continues the conversation as if he thinks she is being serious, they are essentially joking with each other in the conventional way of the period.

-Nick is older than Tom, Daisy, and Jordan. He is not only an outsider in terms of location and wealth, but in terms of a (slightly) older culture looking in on the newer generation. When Nick leaves Jordan with the comment that he is “5 years too old to lie to [himself] and call it honor,” his insult carries extra weight because he is saying she is too young to mature herself enough for a reasonable conversation.

-It takes place after World War I, during a time when the US aggressively pursued an isolationist stance. The US did not want to become involved in any overseas wars. Most of the main characters in the book served in some way during World War I. 

(Note: This story was written before Germany began to loom as a threat in the years before World War II. When Nick calls the deaths at Gatsby’s mansion a Holocaust, it did not have the same connotation it has today.)

[edits made]

[gender-thief2]

english class is fun because part of me is like YAY i get to write a literary analysis essay and part of me is like OH MY GOD ITS JUST A GREEN LIGHT WHO FUCKING CARES

[luckanio]

so i read the great gatsby for english

no explanations (i dont even know why i paired these myself, this is purley off of Gut Feelings (though gatsby and tom for tntduo is because of the whole sort of rivalry showed in the Las Nevadas bit) (there was this one tweet i saw from an ao3 author who said that the characters in their fics are not the dsmp but a boiling pot of all the various interpretations of characters that they've seen throughout all fics and artwork and such) (and that's basically me for everyone except technoblade))

nick as c!ranboo daisy as c!tommy gatsby (yes, the great one) as c!wilbur tom as c!quackity wilson as c!tubbo myrtle as michael (yeah, the piglin kid)