Judging ‘Gatsby’ by Its Cover(s)

NYT ^ | 4/26/2013 | JULIE BOSMAN

[Borges]

“The Great Gatsby” has united generations of American readers with its crash-and-burn tale of empty elegance and impossible love on Long Island in the 1920s.

Now the novel is dividing the nation’s booksellers with dueling paperback editions: the enigmatic blue cover of the original and the movie tie-in book that went on sale Tuesday, a brash, flashy version with Leonardo DiCaprio front and center.

The new edition is timed with the 3-D film adaptation, directed by Baz Luhrmann and starring Mr. DiCaprio, that will arrive in theaters on May 10.

So far this year, sales of the paperback with the original jacket art — a glowing cityscape and a pair of floating eyes — have been extraordinary. On Thursday, it was the top-selling book on Amazon.com. At Barnes & Noble stores last week, no other paperback book sold more copies. It has landed on best-seller lists for independent bookstores.

***

“It’s just God-awful,” Kevin Cassem, a bookseller at McNally Jackson, said on Tuesday. “ ‘The Great Gatsby’ is a pillar of American literature, and people don’t want it messed with. We’re selling the classic cover and have no intention of selling the new one.”

[jobim]

But F. Scott and this Gatsby in particular no.
...if they’re introduced in the right way.

The right way is all-important, as we teachers know. That is
why, as you say, when Big Sis in Big Admin sends the reading list
down, we rebel. Teachers are good when they love their subject
matter, are competent in explaining it, and love their students.
That's the triple crown required for teaching. I believe
you do an excellent job; your words tell. But I might say
that I hope I brought the same fervor to GG in my recent
20 years in the hs classroom. Kids are best served by having
both you and me in their 4 years.

[Borges]

He’s a great writer. But no one reads him for insipid characters like Sonya in Crime and Punishment.

[what's up]

That’s mass market pabulum

So those comprising the mass market can't find things interesting? Re: "Wholesome and well adjusted people aren’t interesting"

Art is supposed to disturb

No...art can also inspire, comfort, strengthen, elate, amuse, etc.

It's a myth that art is only supposed to disturb although left-leaning artists tend to think so.

And I guess "depressing" must not fall under the same category as "disturbing" to you? Re: "No great novel is depressing."

[jobim]

Tenth g boys are the funniest creatures. It’s their humor that SNL started on.

Absolutely correct. 2 of the funniest guys ever are Murray & Belushi,
both Second City alums. I hail from the same time and place as
they do, and I always saw them as Chicago sophomores - they brought
this to the world brilliantly.

I taught sophomore English for 20 years, and a term I always instilled was
wise fools, or sophos moros, which the Greeks perfectly nailed:
a 15/16 year old has an adult brain and a child's disposition, making
them outrageously unpredictable, innocent, mishievious, and funny.

[vladimir998]

“Art is supposed to disturb.”

That’s how those infected with liberalism think. At least Banksy, the serial vandal in London had a nice turn of phrase about it: “Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.” I much prefer how Boris Pasternak put it in Dr. Zhivago:

“...he made a note reaffirming his belief that art always served beauty, and beauty is delight in form, and form is the key to organizing life, since no living thing can exist without it, so that every work of art, including tragedy, expresses the joy of existence. And his own ideas and notes also brought him joy, a tragic joy, a joy full of tears that exhausted him and made his head ache.”

Conservatives believe art might disturb, but rather should elevate, raise up, inspire, and delight. Art should be about the good, true and the beautiful. That changed in the modern era: http://www.atlassociety.org/why_art_became_ugly

[stanne]

I am sure you did well with GG. There is a lot in there. The language itself is wonderful.

In our OLD American lit text book, that I found in a used book shop and made the kids purchase theirs on line or a dollar per plus shipping, there was a big mug shot of Robert Redford as JG and in a tux. Smiling.

A lovely Mexican girl, paging through saw it and said, “oh (my name) he is Cute!”

I did a montage of you tube clips of him and Paul Newman and I showed them the great homes of Long Island built during the era.

They, in turn, showed me, on you tube, BO saying there were 57 states.

They are so politically incorrect it’s like oxygen.

[stanne]

Brilliant!

I never studied this, just an observation.

[what's up]

Oh, yes...Jane Austen is an excellent exception. But she date before the progressive era when we got an onslaught of the left-leaning (as well as communist) writers that almost uniformly depict the wealth and/or wealth as villainous.

I'm not saying that all great 20th century writers are in this camp; I'm just saying that they seem to dominate the field of what is considered "great literature of the 20th century" and what is taught in English lit.

[Borges]

Those sitcoms you listed aren’t Fine Art by any standard. You misunderstand what I meant by ‘disturb’. It’s an aesthetic disturbance. A catharsis - revealing something about yourself or the world that you didn’t know before or that you knew but never quite saw arranged in a beautiful manner. Mozart is disturbing.

[Borges]

Disturb as in cause catharsis. It goes back to the Greeks. See my post just before this one.

[Starstruck]

Shouldn’t these reviews on books and/or actors be on the “Friday Silliness Thread”? Nobody is an expert on what you enjoy except yourself. I can’t but laugh at the pompous asses that think their opinion is the end all.

[KGeorge]

Not just you. The book was ridiculous & depressing- & I found it repulsive.

Why this dog (sorry, pooches, no offense meant) keeps being resurrected every decade is beyond me.

[what's up]

Those sitcoms you listed aren’t Fine Art

Oh, I didn't say they were.

However, you asserted that wholesome people aren't interesting and I gave you just a couple of examples that disprove that assertion.

I think thousands of people have found find Nell, for example, in "The Old Curiosity Shop" or Elinor in "Sense and Sensibility" interesting as well though you state that everyone would find them boring.

[Borges]

Actually no one takes Nell seriously. Remember what Oscar Wilde said...”When one reads of the death of Little Nell, it’s hard not to laugh.”. If those sorts of characters were all there was in Dickens, he would have been forgotten a long time ago.

[Borges]

There are no aesthetic standards? Every opinion is equal? Nonsense.

[vladimir998]

I don’t think “disturb” is the right word. “Tension” is usually the word used when discussing the build up before catharsis.

Merriam Webster

2

a: purification or purgation of the emotions (as pity and fear) primarily through art

b: a purification or purgation that brings about spiritual renewal or release from tension

[Borges]

Can you amplify that? What better American text from that time do you think it’s unfairly displacing.

[Borges]

Tension can disturb! And even apart from that abstract definition, you can see how an examination of evil in say Dostoevsky would be disturbing in illuminating way.

[Starstruck]

And who determines which opinion is less equal?

[what's up]

Nell may not have been taken seriously by Oscar Wilde but that's not the same thing as her having been boring to readers throughout the years.

All do not find her or my other example (Elinor) boring as you do. You yourself may not be "disturbed" (using your definition) by wholesome well-adjusted characters but they have satisfied countless others in various forms of art.