Fitzgerald's 'Tender is the night' and 'The last tycoon' ~ And when I came to the end I said to myself ’So what?’

I usually skip those long, boring introductions and afterwords written by the publisher or translator in the beginning or in the end of the book. Often such introductions present some biased criticism, sometimes, at best, they do contain some analysis, but since no analysis can be conducted without touching upon the book itself, they usually spoil everything possible. Last time I decided to read such an introduction, I learnt that the protagonist of one story is alive and well in the end of the book while that exactly was the main question of the story. It was my fault, however, since there was a warning that the article contains spoilers.

This time, however, those introductions and commentaries were that what saved me from hating the book. And by the way, beware of spoilers here in my post, too.

'Tender is the night'

It was thanks to that afterword that I understood what the author intended his character to be:

a natural idealist, a spoiled priest, giving in for various causes to the ideas of the haute Bourgeoise [sic], and in his rise to the top of the social world losing his idealism, his talent and turning to drink and dissipation

Now the next phrase was impossible to find in the web, but here is what the commentary was saying in my book quoting the 'General plan' of Fitzgerald:

His downfall is determined not by his spinelessness but by genuinely tragic factors, internal contradictions of an idealist and compromises imposed on the hero by circumstances

And I truly thank him for explaining me because, while in case of Gatsby it was pretty obvious what the author wanted to say and it was understandable why the Hero did that and why he did that (and why it ended like this), in case of Dick Diver the narration was extremely complicated - too much for me to see at least a resemblance of any logic in his actions.

What I finally made myself believe in was that he was an idealist because he wanted to be a good man to his friends and a good husband to his poor wife who made him the centre of her world. What I couldn't understand even after reading all those commentaries was what exactly those 'circumstances' were. At least there were some positive traits in Gatsby, the self-made-man, but I could not find anything to relate to or respect or admire in Dick. Of course, all people around him turned out to be cheap and disgusting, including those whom he thought dear, but that does not change the fact he finally never managed to struggle, ruined himself, his health and talent.

What was my surprise when I 'heard' mr. Stahr in 'The last tycoon' say exactly what I thought while reading 'Tender is the night'.

“I thought Em was very sympathetic.”

“Did you?” asked Stahr sharply. “I could just barely believe she was alive. And when I came to the end I said to myself ’So what?’”

“There must be something to do,” Rienmund said. “Naturally we feel bad about this. This is the structure we agreed on -”

“But it’s not the story,” said Stahr. “I’ve told you many times that the first thing I decide is the kind of story I want. We change in every other regard but once that is set we’ve got to work toward it with every line and movement. This is not the kind of a story I want. The story we bought had shine and glow - it was a happy story. This is all full of doubt and hesitation. The hero and heroine stop loving each other over trifles - then they start up again over trifles. After the first sequence you don’t care if she never sees him again or he her.”

I mean, I really could not understand if there were any real feelings in Dick, whose both romances had 'bad ends', speaking the language of visual-novel games. What I did see was that he had his own view of how the world should be constructed and moving, which was sometimes explained in small amounts in descriptions of his attitude to work, children and other things.

'The last tycoon'

I guess I'm sad that the book is not finished, but that's not a  praise to its story, rather to the fact that the language of the narration changed very much and the story was composed in a different manner, which made it at least pleasant to read, if not interesting.

I highly doubt, though, that I would like Stahr or any other character in the story very much, seeing the same old pattern again - he loved her, but she left him for another and he wasn't able to stop her. Or didn't bother to.

conclusion

The few conclusions that I managed to draw out of these two books are something like this:

Fitzgerald is really good at describing mental disorders. His descriptions were so naturalistic I almost shivered.

He is also good at describing details, no matter how important they are to a story. Even if they're not important, he's still describing them. Which is all good for understanding the epoch, but boring.

And finally - I'm glad to live in the 21st century when all you have to find a job is to open a local job-hunting website and make a search. The rich of the early 20th century really had too much money and too much free time. That's not a very fresh idea, and I'm not pretending to have invented it just now, but the book makes one realise it very well.

In the end, it was time and money that was making those people so carefree and lazy. Too lazy to even love sincerely. The women were finally choosing the most convenient partner. The protagonists were creating some images in their minds and living in them rather than in reality. They were too lazy to live in reality.

Some say, the circumstances are to blame, and some say, it's their own fault that the protagonists ended like that. That does not change the fact that all of them finally yielded to the circumstances.

It's not that I hate them for that. I rather pity them. It's just that even though these books are undoubtedly extremely educating, still the only thing I can say about the stories - so what?