Snapshot of my Q&A I did with the entertainment and media magazine, "The Wrap"

The Wrap Interview

1) Do you think that there should be a new movie with based on your theory?

Good question. My first thought was no, but now I think yes.

2) Who do you see being cast for the role of a passing Jay Gatsby?

Always thought Wentworth Miller because he has the look. But now I think Jesse Williams because he has both the chops and the understanding - he would need some make up though. But now I think it should be played by a man who looks very brown to us. So each time the viewer sees him from their pov he's brown, but anytime the viewer sees him from the other character's pov he looks white, but not ultra white. Example, long shot at parties, brown, but Daisy looking at both of them in the mirror, whiter. Seems confusing on paper, but this changing pov needs to happen just a few times to give us the idea and could be stunning in the hands of a visual artist. Alternatively, he could be played by a Wentworth-type person, but then you'd have to come out of the narrative to show he's mixed, like invent some scenes by himself or invent other people who know or show us that Wolfsheim knows, etc. But I'd hate to change the narrative when part of my argument is that it is all there in the narrative. It's what I call our "assumptive pov" that must change. So I think the brown/ white idea, though tricky, works best. Big question: what does Gatsby see when he looks in the mirror by himself? Answer: mixed. He knows who he is.

3) What kind of reaction have you gotten yet from readers, others?

Very positive. Everyone finishes quickly, remarking that it was easy to read- which was one of my big goals. Many have said that they didn't see what was so great about the novel but that this theory changed their opinion of it. Most are surprised by Fitz's background and to the extent they are convinced by the theory, so far most people have credited the information about the original title. It seems that the younger the reader, the more acceptance of the idea. (I expected that.) A good number have been inspired to read another related book or re-read Gatsby. The best thing is that some have learned how much can be read between the lines of a great work. A spider's web is made of threads AND the space between. It's the same with a novel - and with this novel especially.

And just thinking further on this, this may be why the Gatsby films fail. It's hard to get at the space between the lines. Lurhman's came closest. He didn't interpret the novel so literally that he was forced to use jazz in the film. In my opinion he seemed to understand that what was important to convey was the idea of upstart, upsetting black music. Jazz then, hip-hop/rap now.

4) Do you think your book will get more of a pushback in the Era of Trump?

No. I think it will get more of a push forward in this Era of Diversity. Having said that, I am braced for the hate. ( White supremacists claim this book. Did you know that? ) They may be ok with the idea, because after all a black Gatsby gets what he deserves. I think the most flack will come from the set of readers who think Fitz's writing is about nothing deeper than a glass of champagne and who want to see that part of '20's society as being about whiteness - which it was, just perhaps not in the way they think. And there will be a lot of push back from academics of course.

5) What relevance does your book have in the Age of Trump?

This theory tells Americans of color and immigrants to America that this great American novel, telling the great American story of self-empowerment and reinvention, includes them. It only makes sense that it should. It also shows that this entanglement with race and immigration has been with us for a long time and that we have to decide what kind of society we want.

6) Do you seem similarities with American society now and the 1920s when Fitz wrote the Great Gatsby?

Yes. Race is still the organizing principles of the melting pot.

7) Is America still obsessed with whiteness and racial purity?

Whiteness, yes. Purity, no - not most people anyway. Whiteness is still a "keys to the city" type of thing. Those who are able to claim it without easy dispute, do - even if they know they aren't pure.
I worked at a place once where almost everyone wore the mantle of white until it became advantageous, until they were given a key, to declare a Latino heritage. Things changed quickly.
If I were king everyone would have to take a DNA test so they would stop othering so much and see how unpure and muggle-ish most of us are.