This article ends up seeming like an ad for some dubious derivations of the original novel.

- "Take, for instance, Michael Farris Smith's new novel, Nick. The title refers, of course, to Nick Carraway, the narrator of Gatsby, who here gets his own fully formed backstory."

- "Jane Crowther's newly published novel, Gatsby, updates the plot to the 21st Century, and flips the genders to feature a female Jay Gatsby and a male Danny Buchanan."

- "And Claire Anderson-Wheeler's The Gatsby Gambit is a murder mystery which invents a younger sister for Fitzgerald's eponymous anti-hero: Greta Gatsby – get it?"

I had the same impression. Whatever it is about, it is not about

> Why The Great Gatsby is the world's most misunderstood novel

The first thought I had when reading the headline was: by what measure?

I wanted to give the benefit of doubt, but there is not even an attempt to answer the question set out at the beginning.

Instead, like you say, somewhat of an advertisment for later derivations with no clear idea of where to go.

For me underwhelming.

Not a very good ad then since it seems rather dismissive of them.

> Jane Crowther's newly published novel, Gatsby, updates the plot to the 21st Century, and flips the genders

I was tired of the idea of gender-flipping a story before the first story was ever gender-flipped, and I'm no less tired of it now.

I suspect that even people who think it's important to perform the rite of gender-flipping a story don't actually like the stories that result. Because it's the same story as before, but now you have the feeling the author is standing in front of you, waiting for an opportunity to remind you that the main character is a woman now and isn't that incredible?