Although Nick Carraway has his reservations about Gatsby, it is clear he thinks of him fondly; after all, Fitzgerald titles the book “The Great Gatsby.” He leads a questionable existence and comes to a tragic end, yet Nick (and by extension, the readers) feels empathetic toward him. Does Gatsby deserve to be called "Great"? Does he deserve our sympathy? In what ways is he great? In what ways is he not? Provide at least one example to back up your thinking.

Answer and Explanation:

Gatsby was a corrupted man who somehow managed to remain naive. We may very well say he was a great man, but not in the sense usually associated with that word. He was not great for being famous and rich. He was not great for being generous and altruistic. What was great about him was his personality, as well as his perspective concerning the world. Gatsby was a great dreamer. His ambition provided him with this beautiful ability to dream, to look up and reach for higher grounds, a better life, the best girl. He was a flawed man, that is for sure. His principles were inconsistent. To achieve what he so desired, he became a criminal without hesitation. Gatsby focused on the ends, not the means. That does tarnish the greatness of his spirit. Even worse, he assumes others might very well be as morally flexible as he is. Notice how he offers to help Nick at first, only to realize Nick does not sway that easily to the dark side:

‘There’s another little thing,’ he said uncertainly, and hesitated.  

‘Would you rather put it off for a few days?’ I asked.  

‘Oh, it isn’t about that. At least——’ He fumbled with a series of beginnings. ‘Why, I thought—why, look here, old sport, you don’t make much money, do you?’  

‘Not very much.’  

This seemed to reassure him and he continued more confidently.  

‘I thought you didn’t, if you’ll pardon my—you see, I carry on a little business on the side, a sort of sideline, you understand. And I thought that if you don’t make very much—You’re selling bonds, aren’t you, old sport?’  

‘Trying to.’  

‘Well, this would interest you. It wouldn’t take up much of your time and you might pick up a nice bit of money.  It happens to be a rather confidential sort of thing.’

< > answer < >

multiple settings

< > reasoning \ evidence < >

novels have multiple settings. a setting is a place or surrounding when a main event or event takes place. not everything happens in just one scene or setting. yes, there can be one *main* setting, but there is definitely not just one. b is incorrect. novels do not have limited characters. there are many characters in a novel, depending on how many the writer wishes to add in. c is incorrect. there is not just a single theme. there are many themes. another word for "theme" is the subject. there can be many subjects and topics. once again, there are many, depending on however many the author wishes to add or include. d is incorrect. yes, novels *can* have no solutions, based on what the author would like. but typically, novels have a solution. the solution might be in "book 5", but there is normally still a solution.

< > eclipsed < >

answer: hjnh

explanation:

hhjjk