The Simple Economics of Life... man -- Josh

When I think of the Great Gatsby I often first think of the novel through a romantic lens and believe this is appropriate for a story filled with affairs, love triangles and murders of passion. When viewed through a marxist lens the Great Gatsby takes on a new meaning, one which helps illustrate how broadly applied Marxist theory can be, and how overly applied it is because of how adaptable it is for most pieces, especially those set in the United States. Because money is naturally such a large part of anyones life living in a capitalist society its never terribly difficult to prove ones issues are somehow connected to the pursuit of wealth.

In "You are what you own: a marxist theory of The Great Gatsby", the commodification of the main characters is brought to light, and the explaining of love or what is perceived as love through economics. The author shows how every major romantic motivation of that characters is really a carefully calculated business decision. According to the author Toms constant womanizing is result of him marketing his "socioeconomic status where it will put him a the greatest advantage-- among women who are desperate for and most easily awed by what he has to sell" - p. 70 Daisy's love of Gatsby was simply for his ability to support her for the rest of her life, not knowing he wasn't from the same "strata as herself" -p. 72.

Interesting Points... (Willie)

While I did see the novel as a celebration of marxism upon reading it unbiased, many of the thoughts that Tyson points out are things I had not thought of. For example, it never even crossed my mind that Tom had commodified people, which is one of the points she focuses much energy on. I had always considered what he was going more a form of "bribery" in the fact that he seemed desperate and addicted to relationships and would bribe people with as much money as possible for their "love." In retrospect, this is just about exactly the same as Tyson's idea, just without relating it to Marxism, commodification, or any of those theories. The one thing I did think of (I feel so proud that I came up with this all on my own a few weeks ago!) was the idea of Gatsby, the only true "self-made man" in the novel, being corrupt, criminal, and not truly embodying what our perception of the American Dream is. In a way, he represents the downfall of the American Dream.

Adam: possessions are evil

Lois Tyson uses a marxist lens to analyze The Great Gatsby and portrays everyone with possessions as bad, greedy people. Tom views women as having a sign exchange value based on quantity, because he wants people to see how rich he is he "buys" mistresses. Usually from the lower class, his mistresses all "sell" themselves to him in exchange for a lift out of their oppressive middle class that his wealth and stature appears to offer to a person raised with classist values. "A corollary of Tom's commodification of people is his ability to manipulate them very cold-bloodedly to get what he wants" page 71. Gatsby is defined in the reading as desiring everything and using any means to become rich and acquire Daisy. Daisy represents money and class throughout the novel. To Gatsby she has the same sign exchange value that Tom has to middle class women.

Pull the Strings!!! (Milo)

Comodification is the name of the game. The reading does put a dent in my interpretation of Gatsby. Primarily, the idea of Sign-Exchange Rate helps me see that using people and relationships to increase one's social status, even if that means inadvertently bringing it down immediately after words.
I definitely agree more with the Marxist interpretation than the Psychoanalytical lens, especial sense Fitzgerald used class systems as a main theory in Gatsby, not Oedipus relationships.
From the very beginning chapter Nick describing the wealth differences between the east and west eggs, and how it much it matter if you were born in one or the other. Which, can be interpreted as "which class you're born into."

You Are What You Choose to Buy (Sandra)

          

            Looking at The Great Gatsby through a Marxist lens is relatively effortless - the book highlights on numerous examples relating to the effects of American capitalist culture. One barely needs to skim the surface to find instances of the American dream and materialism gone wrong. However, the Marxist interpretation from You are What You Own brought to my attention a new layer altogether. The Great Gatsby criticizes capitalist culture by revealing the effects of capitalist ideology (including those who are its “most successful products”). What surprised me most was “while The Great Gatsby offers a significant critique of capitalism ideology, it also repackages and markets that ideology anew” (78). The concept that capitalist ideology is, in actuality, being sold to the reader was something that I had not suspected.  Reading You Are What You Own made me reconsider the aims and purposes behind the role of American capitalist culture in The Great Gatsby.  Is it possible that The Great Gatsby is portraying commodification negatively, but at the same time is trying to sell it to the reader? 

I Want Money Too! (Christian Frey)

This reading was certainly interesting, and it really showed a new view of the text, and a rather pessimistic one. I think that the reading, as well as all our analysis of The Great Gatsby are rather depressing, and shows a darker side then the one you get when reading the text normally. For example, When it is describing the relationship between Gatsby and Daisy seems like the ultimate love story, they love each other, and through hard work, they live happily ever after. However, on pg 73 of CTT, it provides a dark view, making Gatsby seem like a low stalker, using illegal means just to try and get the woman he likes, throwing lavish party's for people he doesn't even know, and owning a mansion he barely lives in. As for Daisy, she is given the appearance of an attention sucking brat who all she wants is lavish meals and rich husbands, who she can cheat on, to get more men, and therefore more social status, be it good or bad.

In the end, this reading really provided a negative view on an otherwise happy enough book, when you don't dig in deep and analysis every relationship. It also helped clarify the burning desire that everyone has, the one for money, and how it tears relationships apart, making Marxism seem ideal.

Marxist Reading - Eliot

When reading The Great Gatsby with a Marxist lens the first thing I do is forget everything that I thought I knew when reading with a psychoanalytical lens. This is because with a psychoanalytical lens you are looking for people’s motives and thought processes and with a Marxist lens you are given the motives and are looking for things, which back up this explanation. Reading with a Marxist lens there is the idea of Commidification. Commidification talks about people being used for their value this is comparable to the Marxist idea of exploitation. One character who demonstrates this is Tom. He uses people’s value to make up for his own lowered social status. Another character who will commoditise people is Daisy. She uses Tom and Gatsby to whatever end she pleases she sides with the better commodity and is very willing to leave them should they become less beneficial. One example is she is perfectly content to allow Gatsby to take the blame for Myrtle’s death. Gatsby is another example. He commoditised Daisy. Marxist theory says that he felt that should he win her his new money and the stigmas that came with it would change. His money would become ‘new’ money Interestingly enough though a book which, it can be argued, is making strong Marxist statements does not portray the lower class well. Fitzgerald does not treat myrtle and Wilson benevolently. This could show that it was never intended to be a commentary using Marxist ideas, or that Fitzgerald didn’t feel that the focus on the lower class would help him makes his point.

Marxism Ruins Everything (Leslie)

As with all critical lenses, the Marxist lens takes a classic love story and turns it into a story where everyone is out for socioeconomic domination, and will do anything to get to that point. What really stuck with me the most from this essay was the Marxist perception of Daisy. The first time reading through "The Great Gatsby", she was perceived, at least in my opinion, as a flighty, innocent, dimwitted girl that is quick to make decisions and choices, but she doesn't know how to stick to them. For example, she is quick to jump back into Gatsby's arms, but on the spot, when she is forced to make a decision between Tom and Gatsby, and she doesn't know who to go to because she has told both that they are her final choice. After reading this essay, it made me sad because it took an innocent character who wasn't out for money or to get other people (besides her accidental murder) and turned her into a money grabbing, conniving, out-for-herself character just like every other character. According to Tyson, "...Daisy is not merely an innocent victim of her husband's commodification." (Pg. 71). Therefore, looking at Daisy through a Marxist lens makes her seem not nearly as innocent and taken advantage of as she did before, when reading "The Great Gatsby" unbiased. This essay also points out that the fanciful, sought-after affair between Daisy and Gatsby is also a lie. "...and when she learns the truth during the confrontation scene in the hotel suite, her interest in him quickly fades." (Pg. 72). And the quote that had the biggest effect on me because it proved once and for all that Daisy isn't the sweet, turn-the-other-cheek girl that Fitzgerald made her out to be; she is more like Tom. "The apparently ease with hich she lets Gatsby take the blame for Myrtle's death, while she beats a hasty retreat wth Tom, indicates that her commodification of people, like that of her husband, facilitates the cold-blooded sacrifice of others to her convenience." (Pg. 72). If this is the case, then why is she perceived as an innocent, non-threatening girl? Why does the Marxist lens make Daisy seem more and more like her cold-blooded husband?

Marxist lens Change the Way Gatsby Characters are Viewed

In this essay, the Marxist lens changed my perspective of some of the main characters. For example, I view the relationship and the love between Gatsby and Daisy entirely different. Suddenly after reading this, their love is less meaningful, and both of them are only out for themselves, wanting to gain each other as commodities. Gatsby is now only concerned with attaining Daisy, "he took what he could get, ravenously and unscrupulously." In addition, nick is viewed as very bias and unreliable as a narrator. I agree with this conclusion and it makes the book somewhat clearer after understanding that. "Nick wants to believe in the possibility of hope. Nick believes in Gatsby because he wants to believe that Gatsby's dream can come true for himself...Nick doesn't want to be reminded that Gatsby's glittering world rests on corruption." Additionally, Daisy appears almost as terrible as Tom in this analysis. "The apparent ease with which he lets Gatsby take the blame for Myrtle's death, while she beats a hasty retreat with Tom, indicates that her commodification of people, like that of her husband, facilitates the cold-blooded sacrifice of others to her convenience. Why is it that when we read The Great Gatsby, we have so much sympathy for Daisy? In addition, why does Nick seem more reliable than he actually is?

Justine: Money, Money, Money... It's a Rich Man's World

In our class discussions, we have found that The Great Gatsby revolves around wealth, and the failed American Dream. Yet again, Lois Tyson uses fancy critical theory terms to make a simple, obvious concept more complicated than it is. "Nowhere in The Great Gatsby is commodification so clearly embodied as in the character of Tom Buchanan." (70). Wait, really? I had no idea. It's not like it's clear that Tom's only concern is his money, or that his marriage with Daisy doesn't mean a thing to him. We may not have used the exact terms Tyson teaches us, but it's fairly simple to see this using the language we knew before.
Concerning Gatsby, she writes "Even Jay Gatsby, the character who seems at first to embody the American dream and the hope of capitalism thereby offers to all, reveals upon closer inspection of that dream... even his motive for amassing wealth seems pure:... to win the woman he loves." (73) The Great Gatsby is hyped up as a love story, but as we read each new criticism (at least so far), it becomes clearer how impure Gatsby's love for Daisy actually is. According to Tyson, Gatsby wishes to possess Daisy because it would be a "permanent sign that he belongs to her socioeconomic class" where he cannot be accepted completely without this "permanent sign." In other words, Gatsby loves Daisy for her money. Again, we discussed this in class, using the symbolism behind the green light, which represents Daisy, while she represents money.
I'm assuming that when we move on to the less accessible criticism (as the book is in order of difficulty), Tyson's critiques will be less obvious. But you know what happens when you assume...

Empty Dreams (Mae)

Lois Tysons Marxist analysis opens up a new prospective on The Great Gatsby by taking apart the American Dream. "American dream not only fails to fulfill its promise but also contributes to the decay of personal values," (pg 69) by opening the Marxist window it explains the money drive in the book. "Commodification ...creates desire even as it fulfills it,"(pg 70) seemed to explain the majority of the themes form Gatsby. For example Gatsby "never uses his library, pool, or hydroplane... drink alcohol or know most of the guest at his lavish parties," (pg 73) which would seem like he has the world in the palm of his hand to anyone else, but to him his life is never complete. One of the questions I have after reading this is, is it better to be empty but have everything? Or feel like you have everything, but in reality have very little?

Captain Obvious Comes to the Rescue... (Willie)

Lois Tyson's analysis of the relationships in The Great Gatsby is less of an in-depth analysis and more of a long essay of filler in order to make small elaborations on a concept. While I agree with many of her points, the majority of the things she says could be gathered easily by reading the book. It does not take a scientific mind to figure out that Tom and Daisy are both afraid of intimacy. In fact, I would say that this an under-analysis of the situation. Going further, I would say that something about being distant from each other feels comfortable for the two of them. Speaking from a Freudian view, it likely comes down to a distant maternal relationship the two of them had. When seeking a mate, we tend to make an attempt to replicate the way our mothers treated us, and I believe this situation is exactly that. In every single character, this could be applied. No, we do not know the mothers of any of these characters, but we can make assumptions based on what we know and denote that these behaviors stemmed from their relationships with their mothers.

(Burn)After reading... Eliot

After reading p.39-49 of Critical Theory Today By Louis Tyson my new view of The Great Gatsby hasn’t changed much. This is because a lot of the information in the reading is what I would consider to be rather obvious: ex. Daisy being ‘used’ to Toms infidelity. The other parts such, as Daisy being with Tom due to her crippling low self-esteem, to me seems to be well wrong. Also Tyson seems wrong when Tyson says that daisy has a superficial relationship with her child. From the excerpt she provides it is possible to se where her opinion is coming from however it looks more like every other adult fawning over their baby. Tyson seems to be trying to add significance when there is none and then she adds extra significance to what seem; fairly obvious observations.

Unproven Statements of Daisy (Julian)

In Critical Theory Today, Lois Tyson seems to have a poorly-thought out, unproved perceptions of Daisy's relationship with Tom. She depicts Daisy as an woman who uses her relationship as a tool to cover her insecurities, saying "Falling so much in love with a man who was openly unfaithful to her suggests an unconscious belief that she doesn't deserve better. Furthermore, Daisy's insecurity, like Tom's, frequently requires the ego reinforcement obtained by impressing others..." (page 42). I completely disagree with the above statement. While I agree that her relationship with Tom is built upon insecurities, I can't believe she subconsciously sees herself as desperate. She and Tom both subconsciously understand each other: They both have affairs (Tom with Myrtle, Daisy with Gatsby), yet neither seems to care. As Lois herself points out, it's because they want to avoid opening up emotionally, saying "Dividing his [Tom's] interest, time, and energy between two women protects him from real intimacy with either." In this sense, they seem to be an advanced form of "friends with benefits:" They both consensually betray each other. I feel that it is strange to see Tom as smug and superior and Daisy and submissive and unwanted when both are taking advantage of each other, and those unfortunate enough to believe them (such as Myrtle and Gatsby). In Conclusion, I feel that Tyson has gotten separate results from two nearly-identical situations, even though she is applying the same "lens" to both.

Textual Evidence - Lex

Lois Tyson's "What's Love Got to Do with It?" draws many valid conclusions about "The Great Gatsby," but some of her generalizations are sub-par. First, Tyson suggests that Daisy has hidden "psychological motives" (41) that cause her to love Tom because he cheats on her. While the depths of psychology are something on which I have limited knowledge, I find it nearly impossible to believe that someone can have such intuition that their body makes its own, independent choices in such a was as Tyson describes. Next, Tyson states that "(f)or both Tom and Daisy, fear of intimacy is related to low self-esteem" (42). Clearly, Tom has few issues with self esteem, as seen when he says that he belongs to the "dominant race" (17). Similarly, Tyson concludes that Daisy's fear of intimacy can be seen in her "artificial behavior toward (her) child" (43), but the behavior that Tyson describes, "'Bles-sed precious,' she crooned, holding out her arms. 'Come to your own mother that loves you'" (122-23) is certainly dramatic, but not fake. Daisy's affection for her child is simply portrayed in a different way than Tyson, for instance, would show love for her own child. Finally, Tyson generalizes that "(Daisy's) extramarital affair, like her earlier romance with her lover, would not have occurred had she knows that Gatsby does not belong to her social class" (45), and she backs this by saying that "Tom's revelation of Gatsby's social origin... results in Daisy's immediate withdrawal" (45). This is incorrect and inconclusive. Why couldn't it have been that Daisy was withdrawn notbecause she learned that Gatsby was of a poor heritage, but because he had been lying to her about how he had earned his money? Daisy was in a situation where it had been revealed to her that the love of her life wasn't completely honest with her, and that to me seems like a valid enough excuse to pull away from him, rather than Tyson's speculations that Daisy withdrew from Gatsby because he was no longer at the same status as she was. Tyson makes many broad accusations and conclusions from evidence that does not altogether support her points, and this significantly decreases her credibility. Was Tyson wrong to manipulate the facts her way, or is that something that every writer must do?

Who's interpretation? (Phineas)

Personally, I often find that we, and other book reviewers, critics, and the like read far too deeply into many books and writings. While we can glean a fraction of character's personalities from your average, relatively short book like The Great Gatsby. I know that we are usually not supposed to bring the author into our interpretations, but reading this chapter kept bringing the following question to mind: Who's interpretation really is important, or is the "correct" one. Oftentimes, when reading a book, or listening to a song, I usually find something that I think the author/artist is trying to say, whether it's obvious, or in between the lines so to speak, and I'm sure most people do the same. However, sometimes I find out later what the author actually intended, and when it's a totally different interpretation than mine, it greatly changes my perception of the song/writing, and a lot of times not in a good way. But non sequitur aside, this brings me back to my original question: who's interpretation is actually correct? Is it that of the author's, which may never be known (As mentioned in class, some authors will not explain the meaning behind their works), or can any interpretation be correct, in a more subjective manner?

For example, Tyson spoke of the relationships in the book, and how they came back to a fear of intimacy, what if Fitzgerald had intended none of that? Certain aspects can be highlighted that could seem to prove nearly any theory, but it's hard for me to take this sort of interpretation very seriously. While it is possible that this was intended by the author, anyone with a psychology book and enough spare time could probably find a dozen theories and psychological issues for each character, each that may have pages of examples as proof, and each could make perfect sense, but in the end, is an interpretation true if the author did not intend it?
That's what keeps coming to my mind whenever we look at the book through different "lenses."

What a second hand emotion (Josh)

Previous to the reading I had never thought about the Great Gatsby through a strictly romantic lens; "whats love got to do with it" really ads another dimension to the Great Gatsby. The characters motivations through out the novel seemed hard to fathom in many cases, or just plain bizarre in others, but Tyson provides the tools for converting the characters raw emotional actions into something much more manageable for discussion and debate. I had never thought about the relationships in the way I do now after Tyson dissected them. The fact that Daisy is painfully aware of Tom's sleeping around and yet remained with him always struck me as Daisy being weak and not knowing how to make a relationship work for her, but in-reality Tom is the kind of guy daisy needs, or at least feels she needs so she doesn't have to be intimate with anyone, something which would be deeply confronting for her.

Fitzgerald created such a great image of Tom and Daisy in the novel that even as the reader it was hard to see through their act and realize that they truly suffered from a case of severe low self esteem. When Tyson suggests ideas such as these there is a whole new found depth to the novel, scenes start to have new meaning and characters seem to be complete. A third party in-depth review of a text is truly eye opening after you feel you have made all the conclusions one could about a text.

Convenient Love (Tim)

I agree with Tyson that the relationships in The Great Gatsby are fake, and only exist to serve some other motive. As Tyson points out: Tom uses his relationships for his own sense of importance, Daisy uses Tom to avoid her feelings for Gatsby, and Gatsby uses Daisy as a goal: Social class personified. Tom is obviously not in love with either Myrtle or Daisy. The fact that he needs another woman is proof that he doesn't love Daisy, and lying about her religion is proof he does not love Myrtle. Myrtle loves Tom only as an escape from poverty, demonstrated by her disgust in the fact that "[Wilson] borrowed somebody’s best suit to get married in" (chapter 2).

More than just Tom's relationships are false. Gatsby is not really in love with Daisy at all, he is in love with the high-class that she represents. In fact, passion is absent from Gatsby and Daisy's relationship, as Nick says in Chapter 8: "[Gatsby] felt married to [Daisy], that was all."

Tyson's psychoanalysis made me see Gatsby's love for Daisy as less than what I had previously perceived it to be. I had thought that theirs was the type of true love talked about in Disney movies. Now I see it as little more than a facade, used to hide true emotional handicaps.

Never Enough Lovers...(Christian Frey)

This reading changes my view on Gatsby significantly. At first, it seemed as if Gatsby was trying hopelessly to reach this deep idyllic woman that he pictured Daisy as. However, He is actually covering up his past, which I didn't see at first, but it now makes sense to me.
I do agree with the authors interpretation of Gatsby, and I feel that Gatsby is multi-faceted individual, and can not be generalized using this one lens. Ex. on pg. 48 of CTT, "Gatsby's outrageous idealization of Daisy...can not do wrong, can not love anyone but him, etc." portrays Gatsby as a man who is simply trying to live his fantasy out through this woman who is insecure about her past as well. I feel that this view, while valid and I agree with it, is but a small part of Gatsby, and I think that he is not fully insecure about his past, and does have some qualities that in another analysis will shine through.

Christian Frey

(Sarah) Is it Love or Fear of Intimacy?

Lois Tyson puts a new spin on the "love stories" in The Great Gatsby. Personally, while reading the novel I did not associate the love interests to the fear of intimacy, however as Lois Tyson writes "think of each theroy as a new pair of eye-glasses through which certain elements of our world are brought into focus while others, of course, fade into the background." If we look at the novel through a psychoanalytical lense it makes sense that the characters have a fear of intimacy and that is what leads them to have dysfunctional relationships. So I completely agree with Lois Tyson that the characters are trying to be as distant as possible in their relationships, leading them to be unfaithful, lie, or in Gatsby's case be obbsessive. If the psychoanalytical lense revealed why the characters have dysfunctional relationships, is there any other insights this lense can give us about the characters, or does it end here?

What Romantic Relationships Can Facilitate (Sandra Ackert - Smith)

        Lois Tyson’s interpretation of The Great Gatsby puts an eye-opening new light on an old text, and changes the overall experience of the reader. Although I was vaguely aware of the hidden dynamics in the novel, reading Tyson’s made me rethink some of my postulates. The psychoanalytical lens Tyson used to look at the book changed the intention and mood of the plot altogether. By focusing on the fact that “fear of intimacy with others is usually a product of fear of intimacy with oneself” (p. 41), the author took a different path to the same destination. I had never considered that Gatsby himself had a fear of intimacy, but Tyson convinced me otherwise. “Gatsby’s outrageous idealization of Daisy as the perfect woman – she can do no wrong, she can love no one but him; time cannot change her – is a sure sign that he seeks to avoid intimacy, for it is impossible to be intimate with an ideal” (p. 48).  Overall, Tyson spun a new atmosphere around the novel simply by focusing on one aspect, leaving the author to agree with her closing statement: “… whether it intends to do so or not, The Great Gatsby shows us how effectively romantic relationships can facilitate our repression of psychological wounds and thereby inevitably carry us, as the novel’s closing line so aptly puts it, ‘ceaselessly into the past’” (p. 49).  

(Adam Coll) For Gatsby, Love's got everything to do with it

Lois Tyson is correct in all but one of her psychoanalytical findings for each of the characters in The Great Gatsby. In her analysis of Tom and Daisy, she defines their blatant extramarital affairs as a fear of intimacy with each other. Nick and Jordan maintain a certain aloofness even in their closest moments so their lack of intimacy is not surprising in the slightest. "However, once the household she shares with the Buchannans becomes too emotionally "untidy," he beats a hasty retreat"(pg 44) In her analysis of Jay Gatsby however, she is mistaken. "Daisy is merely the key to the goal rather than the goal itself... ...Gatsby had his sights set on the attainment of wealth and social status long before he knew Daisy" (pg 47). While it is true that as a boy Jimmy Gatz had already started to plan out his way to the top of the social ladder and to join the financial elite, it is also true that a goal made as a boy does not always define the life of a man. For example, when I was 8 or 9 I wanted more than anything to become a fighter pilot, I have since changed my mind. The idea that his quest for Daisy is really a quest for wealth because he wanted wealth before he wanted Daisy makes no sense. When I read the book, it seemed to me that Gatsby saw wealth as a means to Daisy not Daisy as a means to wealth. Although his methods were not legal, Gatsby followed his boyhood dream and built himself a fantastic social standing and financial security, with lavish parties thrown in his mansion every night. If his quest for Daisy was a part of wealth, what did he posses before he revealed himself to her at Nick's house. If Jay Gatsby was not wealthy when Nick first met him, I do not know if anyone can be wealthy.

(Nate) Or... Maybe You're Wrong?

So far it seems everyone has agreed with Lois Tyson's psychoanalytic reading "What's Love Got to Do With It?" I however have decided to play the role of devil's advocate and disagree with Tyson.

Lois Tyson jumps from character to character to explain the reasoning behind each of their fears of intimacy. In turn, I'd like to point out the reasons why the first three examples (Tom, Daisy and Myrtle) very well might NOT have a fear of intimacy.

First and foremost, Tom. Tyson argues that Toms tendency to have marital affairs is evidence that he wishes not to become close to anyone and that for him women are instead means of social status. In my opinion, this is a baseless assumption. There is in fact no evidence that Tom wants Daisy for social status alone. Sure it's a plus, but if Tom really wanted no emotional attachment whatsoever, why would he have a child with Daisy? A child is massive responsibility, so even though he nor Daisy pays much attention her, Tom must have at one point wanted to be attached to Daisy to want a kid.

Daisy is next, though I think what I said for Tom applies here too. Tyson claims that Daisy loves Tom for his lack of want for emotional attachment, but why then does she want to call of the wedding? Sure, in the end it occurs, but if she only wanted to marry Tom in the first place to repress attachment to Gatsby, there must be a very large part of her that wants attachment if she tried to call it off.

"For Myrtle, Tom Buchanan represents a ticket out of George Wilson's garage." Why then can there be no desire for emotional attachment for Myrtle? Tyson claims that her relationship with George Wilson is evidence of this, but her argument appears flimsy in my view. Yes, she did only marry George because she thought he was higher class, but one can still marry for money and be intimate with that person.

So perhaps Lois Tyson isn't actually correct in her assertion, perhaps the Great Gatsby really is a love story, just one that doesn't work out in the end.

Loves Outlets. (Mae)

From reading Tyson's Psychoanalytic report on The Great Gatsby, she highlights “fear of intimacy” as a theme for the book. I think that she exaggerates it at some points, taking one-word lines that could be interrupted as a “fear of intimacy” moment and then gives them a deeper meaning. Sometimes Tyson seems right, for instance when she is talking about “neither of them spend[ing] time with Pammy” (pg 43), she concludes, “They don’t stay in one place for any length of time.” After Tyson goes to say that it is because of their “fear of intimacy” that they don’t want to spend time with their daughter. I think that it’s not their fear that drives them in separate directions, but rather a lack of interest. Both of them seem to have outlets; Tom has his mistresses(pg26, 77), and Daisy has the idea of a stable husband(pg 76).

Leslie: What's Love Got to Do with It? Nothing!

Lois Tyson takes a classic "love" story and looks at it through a psychoanalytical lens, explaining once and for all, what makes these characters act the way they do. For example, she perceives Daisy's flightiness as her fear of intimacy, "...the history of Tom and Daisy's relationship suggests psychological motives that point to a different interpretation of Daisy's 'delight' in her husband." (p. 41). Also, "Daisy's low self-esteem, like her fear of intimacy, is indicated in large part by her relationship with Tom." (p.42). The seemingly innocen and whimsical ways of Daisy's actions can be explained psychoanalytically, as can Tom's actions. We all seem to think Tom is just a jerk that cheats on his wife to gratify himself. But Tyson explains that it isn't emotional intimacy or physical gratification Tom is after, but ego gratification, proving to himself and others that he is just as much of a man as the next guy. "...Tom's relationships with women, including his wife, reveal his desire for ego gratification rather than for emotional intimacy." (p. 40). Lois Tyson shows that despite one take on a classic, if you look at it from another perspective, the plot and character's motives can change completely.

Words for Concepts (Milo)

To start, I agreed with Tyson's psychoanalysis of the Gatsby characters. Many of which, I had noticed before reading the essay.
I always though that Daisy was doing everything very specifically, even though she is considered fairly ditsy and shallow as a character. I do have to say though, I think Gatsby's "fear of intimacy" is a bit of a stretch. Not that i think he has oedipal or " petit objet a" syndromes, but Tyson's description of his fear was a bit weak.
I can't say this analysis changed the book for me too much, but it did tell me the definition for what i was noticing between the characters.

Elsa: The Great Gatsby is Definitely Not a Love Story

When we first started reading The Great Gatsby, and "love story" was used to describe the book, it immediately seemed wrong. We read about these characters having quite dysfunctional relationships from start to finish. No one ends up happy, and no one changes their situation to make themselves happy. I agree with this chapter's analysis of each characters own fear of intimacy. What especially drew my attention was the analysis of Myrtle Wilson. Tyson's conclusion of the way Myrtle displays her fear of intimacy seemed like a stretch. It seemed more likely that Myrtle is opportunistic and materialistic rather than afraid of intimacy. Myrtle married Mr. Wilson becasue she thought he was wealthy, not becasue he provided the type of relationship that allowed her to keep some distance.

Justine: Love Has Nothing To Do With It

I agree with Lois Tyson's "What's Love Got To Do It." When I was reading Gatsby, I never thought of the characters as suffering from a fear of intimacy. However, like the the first chapter begins, "whether we realize it or not, psychoanalytic concepts have become part of our everyday lives..." I only thought that the characters just cared about themselves, and it didn't matter who they hurt. Tyson's insights such as: "fear of intimacy in the novel lies in Tom Buchanan's chronic marital affairs," (40) and "Gatsby and Myrtle function... as psychological pawns in their relationship with each other." (46) put some of my thoughts into eloquent, understandable phrases.

Eggs... (Willie)

East and west. Generally these two entities would be considered opposites, just as light and dark, day and night, and yin and yang are. In the context of The Great Gatsby, however, they are not exactly polarized. In fact, they have more in common with each other than one might imagine.

The East Egg of Long Island contains within it old wealth; residing here are families that have had loads of money for likely centuries. The West Egg, on the other hand, is brand spanking new. While still rich, the money has been obtained through hard work, not inheritance. For example, Jay Gatsby, the shady resident of West Egg who throws parties all the time, has obtained his fortune via building a massive alcohol bootlegging business. However, despite the differences in their methods of obtaining wealth they both have similar attitudes towards their wealth. This is reflected in the ways they both spend their money. The folks in East Egg, while not flashy or party-goers, tend to buy themselves horses, yachts, or other things you may imagine nobility purchasing. These are not cheap items. The West Eggers just as well do not tend to be frugal with their money. They will purchase fancy cars, high fashion, and other things you might associate with the roaring twenties.

To me, this points towards simply a difference in the time these two factions are living in. While the book, of course, takes place in 1922, the East Eggers are still living as if it was 100 years earlier. They are not apt to go along with the new changes in society which the West Eggers are taking in with open arms. However, it is my assertion that if you were to place any of those "Westies" in the environment that the "Easties" are still living in, they would get along great and seem almost identical.

Why Did F. Scott Fitzgerald Write This Book? (Willie)

The Great Gatsby could be picked apart for likely one's entire life just to search for hidden meanings and commentaries from F. Scott Fitzgerald, just as most any other novel could. However, with this multitude of messages, it is quite easy to get lost in the frenzy of it all and forget about the heart of the book. So I pose this question: on a fundamental level, what does F. Scott Fitzgerald wish to say his readers in this book?

In short, I would say he wishes to highlight the downfall–or, better yet, failing– of the American Dream, albeit in a very different way than Upton Sinclair did with The Jungle. As opposed to displaying the outright pain of the workers, Fitzgerald focuses on those who got rich from other's pain, a.k.a. prohibition. Jay Gatsby is a bootlegger, someone who illegally runs alcohol through the city. He is also a "self-made" man, truly discovering what the American Dream is. However, Fitzgerald is attempting to show how this "dream" has simply turned into something not actually American, but a thing that can only be achieved illegally. As mentioned earlier, Gatsby also earns his living from other people's pain. Though not as addicting as many other drugs, alcohol does not exactly make for a healthy life, and by illegally selling it, Gatsby hooks others on it, likely sending many into a depressing downward spiral of dependence. Is that what the American Dream is all about? I don't think so.

An incontrovertible reduction of Gatsby's omnipotent fiefdom (why Gatsby is insecure) (Julian)

--This is a late post about Chapter 5. Since I have read to the end of the book, I am using some of my knowledge to analyze the content found earlier on--

Throughout the novel, Gatsby is portrayed as a real life actor. He uses his wealth and status as a means to engage Daisy. He is often quiet and reserved at his parties, rarely speaking with his guests, instead letting his money do the talking. It is important to note, then, how his self-created character and status seem to falter during his initial encounter with Daisy in chapter five. For example, he seems to completely forget the status of his grass on page 84, something which was of concern to him only a day beforehand. Furthermore, on page 84, Gatsby makes a remark on when the papers predicted the rain would stop. As others have pointed out, the weather is often in symbolic in nature. This is no exception. I will leave the exact meaning of the weather for another time, as it is not directly relevant to my point. That being said, Gatsby's remark is one of only a few in the novel showing a state of complete submittance (he has no control over the weather). In conclusion, Fitzgerald illustrates Gatsby's unsureness by temporarily removing his illusion of wealth and control.

The Green Light (Julian)

--This is a late post about Chapter 1 and 4. Since I have read to the end of the book, I am using some of my knowledge to analyze the content found earlier on--

In the end of chapter one, Nick sees the mysterious Gatsby for the first time, and witnesses him extending his arms towards a green light across the water. Like many symbols in this book, the meaning of the green light can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The most obvious of these is soon revealed when Nick discovers Gatsby's love for Daisy (the light is coming from her house). But as Gatsby is delicately revealed throughout the novel, we find him a man of many struggles. Although Daisy is a love of his life, he also had an irresistible urge to acquire wealth, and live the American dream. In this sense, Daisy can be seen as the living embodiment of Gatsby's multiple desires. Furthermore, the green light can be seen as the American Dream itself. The idealistic notion of America was that you could achieve anything if you tried hard enough. But the closed-off aristocratic class, as represented by Tom and Daisy, prevent this from realistically happening. So what does the green light ultimately represent? It represents Gatsby's love for Daisy. It represents Gatsby's desire for wealth. It represents his futile attempt to achieve the American dream. This is just another demonstration of how incredible of a writer Fitzgerald is, as he can give something as trivial as a light a complex and deep meaning.

The Valley of the Ashes (Julian)

--This is a late post about Chapter 2. Since I have read to the end of the book, I am using some of my knowledge to analyze the content found earlier on--

Introduced in Chapter 2, the Valley of the Ashes is the only setting of poverty in the novel. Unlike social commentaries such as "Hard Times" or "The Jungle," "The Great Gatsby" is not constrained to one social message. Instead, Fitzgerald shares his views on multiple topics. The Valley of the Ashes is a clear example of this: although the novel tends to discuss issues pertaining to the wealthy and benefited, Fitzgerald seems to take a momentary "break" to remind the reader of the side-effects of capitalism. Fitzgerald does not spend too much time in The Valley of the Ashes, however is message is still clear. It's geographic location (between the Eggs and New York City) symbolizes it's unfortunate necessity in order to produce luxurious lifestyles. Furthermore, it's proximity to an area bulging with wealth indicates Fitzgerald's feelings that the moral decay found in industrial working areas is just as present, although less obvious, in that of the homes of the elites. Although concise and simple, the Valley of the Ashes yet another great message in a social commentary filled with ideas and opinions.

The Very Last Sentence

"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." What does Fitzgerald truly mean here? Is he simply stating the life goes on despite the tragedies which may befall us? Or is it something deeper? Why such an intricate choice of words? And what could that very last six word phrase mean?

"...borne back ceaselessly into the past." What does this insinuate? Does it say that Nick has made no progress in his life over the past many events? Or, perhaps, Nick has made progress, but now he's back where he started. He's lost Gatsby, Jordan has moved on, Daisy and Tom are distant, all the people associated with Gatsby didn't even see Nick at the funeral. Through everything that has happened to Nick, is all that he is left with in actuality a sad memory and a list full of what ifs?

In Closing... (Eliot)

I’d say that Fitzgerald ends neither on a positive nor negative note. He instead ends the book with a hopeful reflection to the future (yes, I know this doesn’t quite make sense). The over all effect is a more sullen conclusion however this does not make it a sad ending. Just before the book ends it states: “It eluded us the, but that’s no matter—to-morrow we will run faster, stretch our arms farther… And one fine morning----“ While the writing has always been in a style reflecting nicks thoughts it has always been reflecting his thoughts at that point in time or about the past. This is the first time he really takes a look at the future. The way he talks now shows a man looking towards a future that is attainable through progress. I argue that the final words show a hopeful/progressive ending to the book.

Gatsby's Death

Nobody actually realizes Gatsby is dead. Nick, being the person solely in charge of setting up Gatsby's funeral, on several occasions has conversations or thoughts involving Gatsby as though he were alive. (Pg 146) "I wanted to go into the room wehre he lay and reassure him:"I'll get somebody for you, Gatsby. Don't worry. Just trust me and I'll get somebody for you---"" This is not an interaction that is normal to be having with a dead person. When Nick goes to meet Wolfsheim, Wolfsheim says that he would normally stick by his friends till the very end but for some unexplained reason he cannot attend Gatsby's funeral. There is even one person who was away during the murder, and came over to Gatsby's thinking there would be a party as usual. (Pg. 179) "One night I did hear a material car there, and saw its lights stop at his front steps. But I didn't investigate. Probably it was some final guest who had been away at the ends of the earth and didn't know that the party was over." Every main character leaves after this, could Gatsby be metaphorically holding a party that is their lives in the Eggs? When he dies, does everyone simply go home after the party?

Past, Present and Future

In chapter nine, Fitzgerald writes with both positive and negative diction. When he refers to the past, he uses happier and more hopeful words, like "flowered", "enchanted", "fresh" "green", "dream" and "wonder." The past is told like an optimistic person would talk about the future, "the old island here that flowered once for the Dutch sailors' eyes-- a fresh, green breast of the new world." There is also the recurring reference to money whenever something is described as "green." "the green light at the end of Daisy's dock." The past is portrayed as positive and hopeful like, "Gatsby's wonder."
In contrast, the way the present and future is depicted is negative, dreary and bitter. There are negative words such as, "brooding", "beat", "failure", "incoherent", and "obscene." When he writes about the present, it seems boring and uneventful, "I went over and looked at that huge incoherent failure of a house once more." He also writes the future as if there is no foreseeable future to look forward to, "to-morrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther.... and one fine morning--- So we beat on, boats against current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." This is written as though we are all just moving into the future chasing the past. How is the reader supossed to feel at the end of this chapter and book? How do you understand Nick's attitude toward the past and the future?

Nick Carraway

Throughout the entire book, we have watched Nick Carraway get walked all over by Ms. Jordan Baker, used by Gatsby to get to Daisy, and used by Daisy to get to Gatsby. In the final chapter of the novel, due to the loss of Gatsby, we finally hear his opinions voiced, and he is not afraid to tell people what he really thinks. "'What's the matter, Nick? Do you object to shaking hands with me?' 'Yes. You know what I think of you.'" (p. 178, conversation between Tom and Nick). And another example of Nick finally voicing his opinions is, "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy" (p. 179). Yet another example is when Klipspringer called, and Nick hoped it would be Klipspringer saying he would attend the the funeral. Rather, Klipspringer avoided the request and asked for Nick to mail him his tennis shoes (the original intent of his call). "I didn't hear the rest of the name, because I hung up the receiver." (p.169). The nerve of Klipspringer to not even acknowledge Gatsby's death sent Nick into a tailspin, a never before seen quality of Nick. Before Gatsby's death, Nick was a voiceless entity; he didn't even remember when his birthday was until the actual day, and it wasn't even of importance to him. The juxtaposition between Nick's voicelessness and the voicing of his opinions leads us to wonder why? Why is it now that Nick doesn't care about cushioning the truth, or being blunt? Is it just because of Gatsby's death that Nick suddenly has a spine, or is it something else? What is making Nick act so different?

The Sharp Knife of a Short Life

"Jimmy always liked it better down East." (168) Mr. Gatz imparts this notion after his son Jim "Jay Gatsby" Gatz dies. I think is more than just that Gatsby liked being in the East. It represents Gatsby preferring East Egg a.k.a. Daisy's world, to West Egg. All he wanted was to be near Daisy, but he never could because their worlds were too different. He was never enough for her. In the beginning of their love affair, she was young and willing to marry for love alone. But something changed while he was off at war. "She wanted her life shaped now, immediately - and the decision must be made by some force - of love, of money, of unquestionable practicality - that was close at hand." (151) She meets Tom, and it's as if Gatsby never existed. Daisy goes on with her life, having a child and being a good wife to a man who cheats, but always stays by her side; while Gatsby never stops thinking about her and the life he wanted with her.

It isn't until the last two chapters that Nick Carraway shares his opinions concerning the people he has been associating with all summer. He compliments Gatsby, and later writes these words, which I find most eloquent: "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy - they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they made..." (179) Tom Daisy ruined lives, case in point: Mr. Wilson, Myrtle, and of course Gatsby. The "poor" (I say poor because while Wilson and his wife are poor, Gatsby technically isn't; but he might as well be as far as Tom is concerned) Westerners die because of Tom and Daisy. However, the couple never have to take responsibility for their actions. Is this only because of their wealth? Or because they are so heartless that they don't care who loses, just as long as they win?