when i was listening to the book show on the abc radio i was surprised to hear the international guests discuss the book in great detail and miss out the single most poignant element, was gatsby great and if so, why?

by the end of the discussion they all agreed he was a fool, who had frittered away his wealth to impress a girl who rejected him. i was impressed by the sound byte of a young boy reviewing the book, really blown away by his observations and insight.

but why does the panel reject the idea gastby was great?

the answer is because they are materialists themselves, invested heavily in the idea that reality is material and therefore all intelligent people function in the material world. this is not and never been the case, in sciences history, but the age of scientific rationalism is omitting this from their own narrative and now we have this super fascist scientific community that refuse to let people imagine there's other ways to perceive what reality is than material. 

thank god the quantum universe is strong in theory, it really does offer a more liberated science, opening up into imagination.

gatsby was great, he remained true to some ideal, he was a poet, never cared for his materialistic impulses, he knew he was a star and he shone out across the water, to daisy. is daisy deserving of his love, it's not the great daisy, nick and i see the same person, a man who just hoped, and that's enough to make him great, as great as don quixote who was also misunderstood as a fool and a dreamer. 

gatsby was great, those reviewers were intelligent and offered a lot to the subject but never once did they acknowledge this fact about gatsby, and i mention this because hope is powerful, weather deluded or not, it's an extreme sport and very dangerous and anyone offering it is obviously not great in the eyes of the mass zombie, unless you're a poet, fool or artist, the most subversive of all professions.