Mencken is very quotable. For example:
> Evil. That which one believes of others. It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake.
> There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.
H.L. Mencken Reviews the Great Gatsby (1925)
11–20 of 64 posts
Re: H.L. Mencken Reviews the Great Gatsby (1925)
#12I went on a Mencken binge a few years ago and read a lot of his (mostly excellent) writing. I was surprised to find a recorded interview with him, done in 1948: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpGzpqU-b04
[deleted]
Re: H.L. Mencken Reviews the Great Gatsby (1925)
#13I went on a Mencken binge a few years ago and read a lot of his (mostly excellent) writing. I was surprised to find a recorded interview with him, done in 1948: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpGzpqU-b04
I've been wanting to read some of his stuff--is there a website or book that you would recommend as a starting point?
I got this book about 30 years ago, which I thoroughly enjoyed. (https://www.amazon.com/Impossible-Mencken-Marion-Elizabeth-R...)
As mentioned in a sibling comment, his articles on the Scopes "Monkey Trial" were great.
Re: H.L. Mencken Reviews the Great Gatsby (1925)
#14I went on a Mencken binge a few years ago and read a lot of his (mostly excellent) writing. I was surprised to find a recorded interview with him, done in 1948: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpGzpqU-b04
I've been wanting to read some of his stuff--is there a website or book that you would recommend as a starting point?
I actually think the interview I linked to is a good starting point - he has the same sharp, brutal wit in both speaking and writing.
Re: H.L. Mencken Reviews the Great Gatsby (1925)
#15I’ve never quite been able to put into words why The Great Gatsby falls short of my expectations for a “classic” novel, but Mencken nails it. This was a fascinating review and i look forward to exploring more of Mencken’s writings. Thank you for sharing.
Re: H.L. Mencken Reviews the Great Gatsby (1925)
#16Mencken has a point: Gatsby , like much famous Science Fiction, derives its strength neither from story nor from depth of characterisation, but from the world which it depicts.
Above jihadjihad mentions how very American the book is.
Their comment combined with yours might explain my bemusement once I’d finished it.
‘What was that and why is it so well regarded?’
Re: H.L. Mencken Reviews the Great Gatsby (1925)
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dunno -- I got it in high school, and it's one of the few "class" books that have stayed with me through the years. I'd say On the Road, A smattering of Shakespeare, and 1984 did that as well. "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the m…
I think it's the 18th and 19th century tomes that are tough sledding in high school a lot of the time; many like Moby Dick and much of Dickens are pretty long in addition to the somewhat archaic language. There are exceptions like The Picture of Dorian Gray although that's very late 19th century--and, of course, Wilde is very accessible. ADDED: In general, I don't think I read any, but both Fitzgerald and Hemingway s…
Obviously everyone is different, but (aside from Shakespeare) the two books I read in HS that I most liked were Cather in the Rye and A Tale of Two Cities. I should note that after liking A Tale of Two Cities so much, I tried David Copperfield and Oliver Twist and found neither to my liking. I had my great expectations of Dickens' other work rather crushed at that point.
Oh, and forcing anyone to read Melville should be a crime. A very few people I know loved the experience, but I was unable to finish Billy Bud much less Moby Dick.
Re: H.L. Mencken Reviews the Great Gatsby (1925)
#18Mencken has a point: Gatsby , like much famous Science Fiction, derives its strength neither from story nor from depth of characterisation, but from the world which it depicts.
Above jihadjihad mentions how very American the book is. Their comment combined with yours might explain my bemusement once I’d finished it. ‘What was that and why is it so well regarded?’
Fitzgerald was very American--and specifically very Northeast upper class. He was even a writer on the film [Dartmouth] Winter Carnival in 1939--not one of the great 1939 films--but, so the story goes, he ended up getting kicked off the picture because he kept getting drunk in Dartmouth fraternities.
I suspect some familiarity with that milieu helps one appreciate Fitzgerald just as some familiarity with the South helps one fully appreciate Faulkner.
Re: H.L. Mencken Reviews the Great Gatsby (1925)
#19I was lucky not to have The Great Gatsby ruined for me by having to read it in high school. I borrowed it from the library a couple years ago, and wondered if it could live up to the massive hype around it. I have to say that it does. Mencken's critique seems to be that for all the craftsmanship Fitzgerald displays on the page, the story itself is rather thin and contrived. I don't think I'd disagree with that, thoug…
The BBC's In Our Time discussed Gatsby last year. The guests had a great comment: at the time the story in Gatsby was considered trashy and not worthy of a great novel. It would be as if a great modern author wrote a novel about the Kardashians. Today's readers don't have that problem and can enjoy the great writing.
Re: H.L. Mencken Reviews the Great Gatsby (1925)
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's the 18th and 19th century tomes that are tough sledding in high school a lot of the time; many like Moby Dick and much of Dickens are pretty long in addition to the somewhat archaic language. There are exceptions like The Picture of Dorian Gray although that's very late 19th century--and, of course, Wilde is very accessible. ADDED: In general, I don't think I read any, but both Fitzgerald and Hemingway s…
Obviously everyone is different, but (aside from Shakespeare) the two books I read in HS that I most liked were Cather in the Rye and A Tale of Two Cities . I should note that after liking A Tale of Two Cities so much, I tried David Copperfield and Oliver Twist and found neither to my liking. I had my great expectations of Dickens' other work rather crushed at that point. Oh, and forcing anyone to read Melville shoul…
I recall not caring much for A Tale of Two Cities. I keep thinking I should try other Dickens like Bleak House. I do enjoy some other Victorian authors--at least the few best-regarded books I've tried like Wilkie Collins and Anthony Trollope.
I vaguely recall not liking Billy Bud in high school although I read Moby Dick as an adult and was mostly glad I worked my way through but it did take an effort.
I don't think I hated Catcher in the Rye at the time. It just didn't make much of an impression one way or the other.