Vapid characters aren’t a problem if they are doing something interesting or if there is non-trivial conflict or mystery or confusion or tension or drama of any sort or anything that leads to some kind of meaningful change in a character. Gatsby's death might have counted if Fitzgerald hadn't telegraphed it from so far away that it became a non-event.
You know how kids’ books for beginning readers are mostly about stringing together words that are easy to read and make a sensible sentence? See Jane run. Run, Jane, run! why is Jane running? Because she wants to. That’s how Gatsby read to me with more complex words and sentences.
I don’t even mind books where nothing much happens (Iyashikei) if the setting is novel. But Gatsby was predictable and dull for me with cardboard characters living passive lives.
The other book that lots of people seem to love that I've never been able to finish is Moby Dick. I don't dislike it but he pace is a bit slow for me.
The closest analogy I can think of to The Great Gatsby is American Psycho. The whole point of it is to feel like a pretentious act played by the characters. They’re not meant to be relatable or show growth. I guess it’s one of those things that either resonates with you or doesn’t, but it still has value in “getting it.” Most people never escape their status chase and behavior loops.
You know how kids’ books for beginning readers are mostly about stringing together words that are easy to read and make a sensible sentence? See Jane run. Run, Jane, run! why is Jane running? Because she wants to. That’s how Gatsby read to me with more complex words and sentences.
I don’t even mind books where nothing much happens (Iyashikei) if the setting is novel. But Gatsby was predictable and dull for me with cardboard characters living passive lives.
The other book that lots of people seem to love that I've never been able to finish is Moby Dick. I don't dislike it but he pace is a bit slow for me.