Is Gatsby still relevant?

[SFG75]

The answer appears to be yes according to the New York Times.

My green light?” said Jinzhao, who has been studying “Gatsby” in her sophomore English class at the Boston Latin School. “My green light is Harvard.”

Some educators say the best way to engage racially and ethnically diverse students in reading is with books that mirror their lives and culture. But others say that while a variety of literary voices is important, “Gatsby” — still required reading at half the high schools in the country — resonates powerfully among urban adolescents, many of them first- and second-generation immigrants, who are striving to ascend in 21st-century America.

“They all understand what it is to strive for something,” said Susan Moran, who is the director of the English program at Boston Latin and who has been teaching “Gatsby” for 32 years, starting at South Boston High School, “to want to be someone you’re not, to want to achieve something that’s just beyond reach, whether it’s professional success or wealth or idealized love — or a 4.0 or admission to Harvard.”

 

[GERBAM]

Go! Go! Gatsby

The questions about relevance of any book is to me completely rhetorical and useless.
Since I have never seen a convincing argument that defines 'relevance' in the literary canon I maintain that the novels that rise to the top of the list inherently have universal insights, questions, issues and bring to readers of all ages and times important ideas to think about.
The quality of writing and prose style along with plot and characters are always welcome to readers who seek to learn about the human condition and it's myriad forms.
Is THE GRAPES OF WRATH valuable to young readers today? Of course it is. And it's a shame that schools don't have the time or money to teach classics like this. It's a wonderfully rendered novel that speaks not only to a piece of American history but rises to the level of discussing humanity, family, and chutzpah.

Of course Gatsby is as important today as it was when it was published. Is there any doubt?

GERBAM

 

[Niphredil]

Personally I don't see the question to be as useless as GERBAM seems to think it. Perhaps in the individual case of Gatsby, especially to American's, being close in time and place to that which produced the novel, the question seems less than useful. But for people separated from a novel by time, space and culture, it can be a very relevant question. The Great Gatsby in my english college is taught as an alternative to The Color Purple as something separated from us.

If great novels are those with universal insights, questions, and issues, then the question is whether Gatsby fulfills that criteria, if you want it to be universally relevant and render the question rhetorical and useless...

 

[silverseason]

Personally I don't see the question to be as useless as GERBAM seems to think it.

The Times article was especially looking at books given or assigned to teen agers. This is an age where you hope you are introducing readers to serious literature. If a book seems totally unrelated to their lives and concerns - not relevant, in other words - you may have great difficulty getting their attention.

 

[beer good]

Azar Nafisi makes some very good points about the universal relevance of both Gatsby and several other "classic" novels in Reading Lolita in Tehran. Recommended.

 

[GERBAM]

silverseason and niphredi

Your response to my post really set me thinking. While I still stand by what I said, I see your points too. And I agree w/you ... to a point. Let me say that I was not thinking of teens per se ... I was thinking of college students and beyond.

But to address the teen/high school reading projects I know how hard it is to keep teh audience's attention. But I also think that a really strong and imaginative teacher is responsible for guiding her/his students in ways to understand the universal relevance of the book in question. Perhaps Gatsby is not the best book to use in this endeavor unless the assignment is to highlight a certain time frame in America and how/why Gatsby is still an important book.

I have not done my homework and have not read anything about the relevance of classics in today's world. So I have left myself at a disadvantage here ... I do know that Haroldl Bloom (a hero of mine) has discussed these issues in his many books and while he remains controversial in some of his observations he does make lofty points. He lectures about what kids read ... and his standards are so high some just dismiss him. For example he wrote that he would rather see youngsters read cereal boxes than read any Harry Potter. His argument was that so many truly excellent books exist for young readers why give them trex?
The rebuttal was 'at least they are reading.'

I think it is a shame to offer students a choice between Gatsby and Color Purple ... BOTH are so truly American and address very different worlds. Maybe I am being too harsh ... dunno ... I just believe that important books are always relevant but perhaps it depends on the audience?

I'm still thinking

 

[silverseason]

If reading is simply decoding letters of the alphabet back into the speech that those letters record, then the cereal box is serviceable if a bit dull. With Harry Potter you also get characters and a narrative, something that Harry Potter has in common with the Iliad and Shakespeare.

Why do we have to be so judgmental? My parents did not openly guide my reading, although they had some excellent books on the shelf. I read Alice and Wonderland and Tom Sawyer at home and borrowed the Bobbsey Twins and other fluff from my friends. Sometime around 14-18, you may begin to sort these options out, to develop some standards. Teachers can help.

 

[GERBAM]

If reading is simply decoding letters of the alphabet back into the speech that those letters record, then the cereal box is serviceable if a bit dull.

TOUCHE!!

With Harry Potter you also get characters and a narrative, something that Harry Potter has in common with the Iliad and Shakespeare.

I don't quite see Harry and Will as comparable but I do understand what you are saying.

Why do we have to be so judgmental?

IMHO these judgments come from readers like us with a broad background in choosing our materials. I know that when I look back to 1977, which is when i began my book list, and follow it thru today I can see dramatic if slow changes in my book choices. In the beginning I was reading Sidney Sheldon and Jackie Collins because they were so popular ... and I really believed I was well read and au courant. But as time moved on and I began to experiment with other writers I was able to see the difference when I read someone like John Fowles or Nadine Gordimer. [limited examples to save time] Personally I think everyone needs to take a break and read a 'popular' book that does not require much thinking ... it's like having a twinkie ... but one cannot be fully nourished eating only twinkies.
I believe that everyone has a personal right to choose whatever reading material they want ... but I also think that's it's important to know what you are reading. I also think that peoples' tastes change over time if they are willing to stretch a bit.

I OPENLY ADMIT I HAVE BECOME A BOOK SNOB. In my old age, just like the woman who is the narrator of the poem: WHEN I AM AN OLD WOMAN I SHALL WEAR PURPLE ... I am what I am and can only hope to be broadminded enough to listen and learn in discussions like these.



My parents did not openly guide my reading, although they had some excellent books on the shelf. I read Alice and Wonderland and Tom Sawyer at home and borrowed the Bobbsey Twins and other fluff from my friends. Sometime around 14-18, you may begin to sort these options out, to develop some standards.

I think you are making my point here ... or Bloom's point ... your home was stocked with wonderful books that took pride of place and thus your parents offered you the best foundation. Kudos to them. Nancy Drew and Bobbsey Twins, Hardy Boys etc. were important in their own ways and are making a comeback here in the states. ARe they reappearing where any of you live?

Good and interesting posts.

 

[SFG75]

In creating this thread and posting the link that I did, I did so with the intent to show that there is a big school of thought that roughly runs like this-kids of a different ethnic culture don't need a Euro-centric curriculum and instead, should read from authors and books of a smiilar culture as their own. So you toss the F. Scott Fitzgerald, John Steinbeck, and any other dead white guy in favor of bell hooks, Cornell West, Frederick Douglas, and Alex Haley. You do that because, supposedly, it will interest the kids more than say...having them read MacBeth. Honestly, I was almost convinced of that as my kids love The House on Mango Street, and detest the Eurocentric books that I have them read. However, I'm slowly winning them over to Arthur Miller and Steinbeck.

 

[beer good]

Isn't America supposed to be a melting pot? Can't they all read a little of each and be exposed to different viewpoints? Hell, *I* read Alex Haley in school...

 

[GERBAM]

Deeper Into The Labyrinth

Seems to me that our discussion has taken a wrong turn somewhere ... or else I am not understanding what I am reading here.

I don't see where anyone said that a particular book is irrelevant ... just that perhaps it represents a time and writing style that may not be familiar to new readers. Yet we oldies (but goodies) find ourselves working through Slipstream writing, magical fantasy, narrowly plotted new forms of writing and more. All legitimate and all different.

As for euro-centric white males ... they have dominated the western canon for eons. Over the last 25yrs this has been changing and women have taken their place in the canon as have writers from all over the world.

Am i missing something here in the translation?

 

[silverseason]

I have enjoyed the discussion and think some excellent points have been made. Two (at least) different issues are being addressed.

First, the canon of what is to be read/taught in school. It has been slowly changing, as one would expect. More adding than subtracting, I hope.

Second, restricting the reading of children so that they don't take up with disapproved literature (example given: Harry Potter). The proposition appears to be that if children read some junk they will be forever contaminated so that they can't appreciate the good stuff. Good grief!

I am as much of a book snob at they come. Look at my blog here, Silver Threads, for examples. But I still read some junk too, especially on airplanes.

 

[Niphredil]

Yet we oldies (but goodies) find ourselves working through Slipstream writing, magical fantasy, narrowly plotted new forms of writing and more. All legitimate and all different.
QUOTE]

You know, I can't beleive I never thought of that before. Interesting.

It seems the problem here is that as soon as you open the question of a books relevance to any given group, you pave the way for hundreds of side-questions that are actually just as important, and unavoidable.

For example, what are we suggesting when we say that, for instance, an American child is more equipt to understand and relate to an American author than an English child, or a French child? It suggests, if not entirely, then at least in part, that the mind is better adapted to recieve the communications of someone with a common cultural background. Might seem obvious really but think about the implications of that. If an American can better relate to an American author, does that suggest that only an American can fully appreciate that author?

That is of course plausable. It makes sense that a link in the cultural backgrounds of writer and reader will make the communication easier. An American of my age may be able to more fully understand the use of the "American Dream" in Arthur Miller, something I had to continuously and conciously remind myself of while reading. This doesn't mean I recieve less of worth from his plays, just that what I do recieve is something different and possibly further away from the author's intentions (more thick woods to enter).

But what does this say for gender? Will a woman necessarily understand more of a female writer's intentions than a man? And is it then EVER possible for a man to create a fully plausable female character, or vice versa? Or are we underestimating the powers of imagination?

And THEN, another huge question...the whole question of relevance suggests that similitude and sympathy is what we look for when we read. How far is this one true? Personally I feel that what we seek when we read is the perfect balance of concord and dischord, as it is sympathy and repulsion that play with our emotions. Whether these have to be places in a certain arrangement to create the correct effect (another juicy topic, given differing senses of perfection), or whether there are many options, is something writers and indeed all artists have been working on for centuries. But IF, as GERBAM suggested in his first post, it is something universal that makes a work of literature great, a playing with universal emotions, something that will touch all readers of all ages and all cultures (should they give patience and time to the work), then it is this universal chord than artists all strive to attain. And then, surely, culture does not matter?

But then, that is dealing with the question of what makes a work of literature great, which is not necessarily what this thread was about to begin with. If the intention is merely to get children to read, then (in absence of that universally perfect book), a similitude in culture will surely be a help towards their feeling something of that mix of emotions that keeps us coming back again and again to books?

But if that is so, why do they seem to like Harry Potter so much, across nations? And Lord of the Rings? And so on.

Oh dear...time to give someone else a say I think!

 

[PipPirrip]

There are some interesting discussion points there Niphredil,

For example, what are we suggesting when we say that, for instance, an American child is more equipt to understand and relate to an American author than an English child, or a French child? It suggests, if not entirely, then at least in part, that the mind is better adapted to recieve the communications of someone with a common cultural background. Might seem obvious really but think about the implications of that. If an American can better relate to an American author, does that suggest that only an American can fully appreciate that author?

How do we get to the proposition that someone who shares an author’s culture may understand and relate to it better than someone who doesn’t share that culture?

For that matter, how do you define a shared culture – how much commonality is there between [a ?] contemporary American culture and that of FSF or of his ‘Jazz Age’?

It makes sense that a link in the cultural backgrounds of writer and reader will make the communication easier.

Is ease of communication of any consideration in literature? For that matter, should the author’s culture even be visible in a text?

But what does this say for gender? Will a woman necessarily understand more of a female writer's intentions than a man? And is it then EVER possible for a man to create a fully plausable female character, or vice versa? Or are we underestimating the powers of imagination?

I not sure what a fully plausible character is. Or why one should have merit? Extending your argument ad absurdum, the only characters an author could create plausibly would be a reflection of themselves, and the only person that could understand that character would be the author. Yes, the argument is puerile, but more so than drawing a line at national identity and gender?