The ending conclusion is so bizarre to me. From the article: > That’s a question to think about as you start to read this thing, whether for the first or fift

The ending conclusion is so bizarre to me. From the article: > That’s a question to think about as you start to read this thing, whether for the first or fifty-first time. Daisy is this man’s objective, but she’s the wrong fantasy. It was never her he wanted. Not really. It was America. One that’s never existed. Just a movie of it. America. My reading is the exact opposite. He falls deeply in love as a young man, cannot correctly frame this infatuation with Daisy, and spend his entire life in trying to win her back. The wealth was a means to an end. Rather than being purposeful about his love for her, he goes about it in an almost timeless fashion. Gatzby makes himself visible in the largest way he can, stretching out into the world, without actually directly aiming for her. Hence all the parties, so eventually Daisy must get caught up in his orbit, just by the sheer enormity of his presence. It was _exactly_ her he wanted, and the mansion across the water, the sports cars, were the elaborate mechanisms to get her. Not "america" or whatever. The ambiguity is if she truly loved him, or if Daisy just got caught up by the sheer gravitational pull of it all. It's happened to be set in the roaring 20s because that's when the book was written, the self-made man was already a trope in american literature, as was the excess of the nouveau riche. It's a book - quite simply - about (mostly) unrequited love, and the length men equate achievement with desirability.