The general vision and viewpoint (GVVP) of a text is substantially influenced by a reader’s inclination towards it, therefore the GVVP can doubtlessly be shaped by the reader’s attitude to central characters. For my comparative studies, I have analysed “The Great Gatsby” novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald and the “Brooklyn” film directed by John Crowley. The unique personalities within each text had a direct effect on my understanding of their GVVP. From the purity of their ambitions, to the value they place in wealth, and their attitude towards adversity, I found the trajectory they took in each text to be both immersive and captivating.

Naturally, the ambitions of the central characters in each of the studied texts had a direct influence over my attitude towards them. The goals of both Gatsby and Eilis are similar in their heartfelt and pure nature. In “The Great Gatsby” , Gatsby is driven by his infatuation of Daisy and his longing to win back her affections. He chases this goal with a single-mindedness of a man hopelessly in love, dedicating five years of this life to building his wealth and reputation in a futile effort to be worthy of her attention. Eilis’ ambitions are equally idealistic to those of Gatsby, however her’s overshadow Gatsby’s in terms of achievability. Although Gatsby’s determination is laudable, not only is Daisy married but she is incapable of loving anyone other than herself; as a result, Gatsby’s dream is impossible. However, in Brooklyn, Eilis simply wishes to build up a life for herself. After emigrating from the then poor rural town of Enniscorthy to the fast-paced lifestyle of Brooklyn, Eilis’ goal seems more plausible than it did in the opening of the film. Her dedication to her future is a mirror of Gatsby’s as she takes classes in bookkeeping to broaden her career opportunities and push through any initial homesickness. While I believe both central characters to be naïve in their pursuits, it is this very naivety that I find most endearing. They both have “an extraordinary gift for hope”, morphing them into characters that inspire optimism and positivity.

Nevertheless, the central characters of both texts are complete opposites when it comes to the value they place in wealth. During the 1920s, where “The Great Gatsby” is set, individuals were either driven by wealth or had a complete disregard for it. Their snobbish and pretentious nature is juxtaposed to that of “Brooklyn” where our central characters are honest and hardworking, seeing money as merely a means to an end. This contradiction can clearly be observed while comparing Daisy and Eilis. Daisy was a careless and selfish individual, who “smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into (her) money.” She uses money as a shield, a buffer against reality and the havoc her thoughtlessness wrecks. We are witnesses to how she takes wealth for granted, never once showing signs of gratitude for the grandeur she lives in, a luxury she didn’t earn. We especially see this disrespect for her wealth when she breaks a three hundred and fifty-thousand-dollar necklace without a second thought in a fit of hysterics. She is unlike Eilis, who is grateful for any kind deed or opportunity presented to her as we see when Father Flood pays for her first semester in a bookkeeping course and she saves up to pay him back as thanks. Having to work for a living her whole life, for Eilis acquiring wealth was simply a stepping stone to achieving a greater goal. Family and friends are where her values lie, further highlighting the huge dichotomy between her and Daisy. My dislike for Daisy besmirched the positive light of “The Great Gatsby” for me, opposed to how my respect for Eilis enhanced the charm of “Brooklyn”.

However, in the face of adversity, the central characters of both studied texts are steadfast in their disposition, therefore increasing my respect for them tenfold. Neither Nick, nor Eilis caved when confronted with complications. In Nick’s case, while organising Gatsby’s funeral, each invite he distributed was declined. Despite the frustration, Nick stubbornly continued searching for attendants. When Gatsby lived “they used to go there by the hundreds”, yet when the funeral is finally held, only a handful were present. This experience left Nick feeling inclined to leave New York and the inconsiderate individuals therein behind, a decision parallel to one Eilis made when she was reminded for the dramatics (?) of her hometown Enniscorthy. This reminder is presented in the form of Ms Kelly attempting to blackmail her by revealing her secret marriage to Tony Fiorello back in Brooklyn. Eilis faces the confrontation bluntly by standing up and stating, “my name is Eilis Fiorello” proudly, nullifying the capability of Ms Kelly’s threat. There is an aspect of hope in both texts as our central characters move away from where all the negativity in their life had festered and towards a potentially brighter future.

In conclusion, both the similarities and differences of “The Great Gatsby” and “Brooklyn’s” central characters helped morph a distinct GVVP. Their ambitions, value towards wealth, and attitude in the face of adversity, largely impacted my disposition towards them and whether I perceived each text as positive of negative.