Great American Novell

And they're all around a high school reading level

Dude you know what I meant- wtf is going on in your life that you had to correct that ?? BTW the best scene in GG is the elevator scene. Nick totally banged that queer

What great books were still beyond you at 18?

None, but I read at a much higher level than most high schoolers.

I'm not a good standard to hold others to, I'm too well-read.

Either way, great European novels are much more challenging than great American novels.

There are plenty of challenging American novels. They get talked about here every day. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that since the end of World War II, it's been the Americans who have dominated the writing of great novels and been challenging the rest of the world.

Ys this superficial bliss lifestyle the book is showcasing is interesting and all but holy shit that chapter was tedious & boring, then again i have a terrible attention span like any other millennial

Give me a single example that I can't honestly reply back with "Meme"

>an entire continent that has writing since Homer has better books than a single country founded in 1781

They're "memes" here - meaning they get discussed a lot - because Veeky Forums users are very interested in big experimental challenging novels. And since 1945, Americans have been the ones writing them.

wtf is this thread the great american novel is Moby Dick
how is this even a point of contention

One

>the great american novel is Moby Dick

Right.

OK, so you want me to name a great and challenging American novel, but you don't want me to mention any of the ones that immediately come to mind because we talk about them here so often. Sure.

Nightwood by Djuna Banres

A cult classic at best, and only for the sapphic among us.

Hardly what I would call a "Great American Novel"

It's not about reading level. Big words don't mean shit. It's about depth of ideas.

Steinbeck, Salinger, Harper Lee, Hemingway, all high school reading level, but only in a literal, vocabulary sense.

>depth of ideas.
and this is it lacked too. nothing but contemporary whining shit with no actual understanding. its the literature equivalent of trump jokes, sure its aimed at the right place but ultimately its useless and has no depth to it

nigga what the fuck is the Great Gatsby? Buncha rich black people with relationship problems? Sheeeit, fuck the Great Gatsby mang

idk, try Women and Men

No one will ever argue that Scotty Fitz lacked depth, but the guy - for the 1920s - had style. So much style that we read his stupid shit 100 years later. Literature is an art. Sometimes art rises above it's medium and offers some sort of insight, but you're a fedora tipping pleb if you don't get that at the end of the day art in of itself is an aesthetic delivery above all else. If you want to prioritize depth stick to nonfiction. If you want to make an argument that there were better American authors in that time that synthesized the two, state them. Otherwise stfu

The rarest Double black Diamond

That's a pretty shallow reading, user

If you earnestly believe Gatsby had no depth, you haven't really lived, try circling back on after your mid-life crisis

The answer is prose you cuntbags. Sometimes you wanna pick up a book and enjoy reading every word in a sentence in how it's picked and arraigned.

>Muh prose

Almost as bad as "Muh plot" fags

Not that user, but

>If you want to make an argument that there were better American authors in that time that synthesized the two, state them

Steinbeck, Sherwood Anderson, Faulkner, Hemingway come to mind.

>Steinbeck
overrated
>Anderson
"I go about looking at horses and cattle. They eat grass, make love, work when they have to, bear their young. I am sick with envy of them."
>Faulkner
best on this list
>Hemingway
delete yourself

No, it's Moby-Dick

Absolutely patrician.

nah

>Not reading the superior 1920s novel by a Minnesotan author

Then read poetry

Not true. "The Waste Land" was written by an academic for academics in the 20s

This is actually a good point. It doesn't matter what the meaning behind a painting is if the aesthetic is shit. The same should go for literature

This is the single most dry thing I have ever read, and it infuriates me.

I'm convinced that Gatsby is taught in school because it's a relatively easy read, it doesn't raise controversies, and it has been selected as the representative of the "roaring twenties" similar to how Grapes of Wrath is the representative of the depression. Some books just can't be studied in school. Moby Dick is a great book but it's too fucking long for a one week treatment in English class.

TL;DR This book benefits greatly from being in the canon and the reasons for it being in the canon aren't necessarily based on literary merit.

Teaching mo

Nah, it's cool. At first it seems like the author is mocking George and his conformity. But then you realize that George's rebellion is useless as well.

How far in does it get good? I'm only on page 150 or so, and I'd like to know whether I should keep going.
>inb4 always keep going

in my school, gatsby was used as an introduction into reading into symbolism and subtext

its very obvious in that regard, but its also pretty beautifully written, and not hard to follow, and just a good story at its core

Because the world expects you to be a fully functional adult out of high school.

>doesn't read high school level texts because it's "beneath him"

I don't remember. I read it about 10 years ago. Just roll with it.

I'm not saying it's a bad book. But there are charactersitics of the book that make it useful for teaching.

I liked A Confederacy of Dunces, but I think it would be a nightmare to lead a bunch of teenagers through that.

Go read a book you looser

The only comparable one is Faulkner, but I would argue Scotty Fitz still had better aesthetics. But then we're just comparing muscle cars to luxury cars I guess

How do you write really good prose, the kind that will make a novel sell well?