New Criticism [Tim]

Lois Tyson's New Critical interpretation of Gatsby shows me how a deeper understanding of a text can be achieved through a close analysis of the text itself, without consideration of the historical or biographical context. By inspecting the imagery of the text, Tyson is able to come to the conclusion that :"It is the universal theme of unfulfilled longing, so powerfully carried by the novels' magnificent imagery that has made The Great Gatsby the enduring masterpiece that it is." I particularly liked how she observed the tension between the "idyllic..plenitude, fulfillment, pleasure, and harmony" that surrounds the rich, and the "vulgar" way in which they act. The tension, according to Tyson, mirrors the tension between "[L]ife the way we want it to be, ...[and] life he way it isn't". Additionally, I liked how Tyson notes how ambiguity adds to the overall theme of longing, remarking on Nick’s comment on the city as full of “wild promise of all the mystery and beauty in the world”. We don’t really know what about the city is wild, mysterious, and beautiful, but we do know that Nick longs for it. This new way of reading, is by far the hardest for me to wrap my head around. The fact that the text has “one true meaning” that is carried by the “form of the text” baffles me. How can profound meaning be found in the mechanics of literature? How can one text mean only one thing? How can we disregard the reader, author, and context of the text so easily?

New Criticism (Josh)

The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald is a novel I feel can be looked at through a New Criticism lens and still have the authors original intentions be shown. Fitzgerald had such a focus on making each section of the story perfect, revising time after time again to make sure every aspect, whether structural or not, was perfect and flowed just as he intended. The Great Gatsby is a unique example though, it is truly a rare piece of American literature and as we have seen through out our exploration of the novel, viewing the book through different lenses, criticisms can be broadly applied to the text and almost always have some material to work with, which is impressive when the The Great Gatsby's relatively short 180 pages is taken into consideration.

Even when looking at texts that work well with New Criticism I cannot agree with the ideals behind New Criticism, simply ignoring other aspects of a text and suggesting that its main meaning should be determined through its structure and nots its content or context is ridiculous. Other criticisms such as Feminist for Marxist don't simply ignore parts of a text, they try to adapt those aspects of the text into something that can be seen as an argument for their cause. New criticism can be an important lens to use in combination with others to try to understand the complete meaning of a text but when used on its own I feel a complete understanding is impossible to gain.

Late Feminist Post (joey)

After looking at The Great Gatsby through a feminist lens, my view has changed only in small ways. I had noticed lots of the topics discussed in this essay before reading it, and i agree with some statements made by lois tyson like how she points out that the great Gatsby takes place during a time where women's behavior was starting to change and how that is a pivotal point about the book. "Women could now be seen smoking and drinking (despite prohibition,) often in the company of men and with out chaperones." Lois used the term "New women" to describe the change in women's behavior during this time. I think that Jordan is a good example of a new women, because she is the one chasing after Nick and she is always seen smoking and greatly enjoys Gatsby's parties. The fact that there are women going through this change and becoming more outgoing and aceptable adds to the romance aspect of the novel, well actually i think the romance aspect of the novel really shows the changes the women are going through because it describes the struggles with men and women trying to break free and become their own people by taking control of their own lives. I cant really see the example of women becoming "new women" in any other aspect of the book, can you? Other then partying, smoking, drinking and relationships?

Deja Vu? (Milo)

Upon reading the "New Critical" method i just had to think to myself, "Wait...Wha?"
We've already gone over the idea of close reading, and pulling apart texts from Gatsby. Close reading, for me at least, is actually one of the cleaner, purer ways of analyzing readings, why? because we're just reading the words more deeply, as opposed to make accusations about the Author's secret love for proletariat uprisings while they kept their wives in the kitchen. it's really bare-boned, and easy to swallow. The best part of criticizing some parts of Gatsby over again, is that you notice subtle hints about scenes or conversations, (especially repetition of certain weird words) that didn't change the story's meaning, but it did make it deeper than before.

New Critism, Sarah

"The 'Deathless Song' of longing: A New Critical Reading of The Great Gatsby", the aspect that caught my attention was when Tyson analysed the green light at the end of Daisy's dock. Although I agree that it is a symbol of unfulfilled longing, I do not agree with Tyson's analysis of the light and its symbolism. Green throughout the novel is consistently associated with money. I believe that rather than Daisy being Gatsby;s unfulfilled longing, i is what Daisy represents, which is of course old money, that Gatsby truly longs for. The green light at the end of the dock represents old money which Gatsby could only obtain by marrying Daisy; his unfulfilled longing. By the end "[Daisy] came to the window and stood there for a minute and then turned out the light." This shows that Gatsby will never be old money, and will therefore continue longing for Daisy or old money. My question is this theory does not fit into Tyson's other observations, so how does this interpretation fit into her analysis of The Great Gatsby?

Joey.

New criticism is a joke. If there is actually a criticism that my 7 year old neighbor can comment on things in the same way a new critic would, then i dont think it should be worth teaching at a high school level. In regards to hearing about new criticism in The Great Gatsby, how could looking at the words and their "tension" change the way I look at a story? A story is a story and you can read the words and interpret them any way you want, and the story will follow the storyline the way you want it not the way other people want it. Another problem with new criticism is the fact that when you're looking at such a shallow base information such as the text, you can miss the meaning of the novel or become confused in the storyline and in my eyes not enjoy the book you're reading. New criticism might have some potential if combined with other criticisms. In fact it could be combined with just about any other form of criticism and thus create a truly "new" criticism. But what would be the best criticism to combine new criticism with? Would some be better then others? How would a combination take criticizing to a whole new level?

Old Criticism (Willie)

Not to beat a dead horse and echo everyone else's sentiments, but New Criticism has not changed my view on The Great Gatsby at all. I don't even see at as a lens. It is essentially looking at the text without one and taking everything in its own context as opposed to that of its historical period. This is the way I looked at Gatsby upon my initial readings. Nothing has changed. That being said, I like this way of picking apart a text. However, I would get rid of the objectivity of it that its practitioners believe in and acknowledge that we will all see different things and that those different things are simply our way of reflecting ourselves into whatever it is that we are reading. For this reason, I think it is utterly vacuous to attempt to reach some sort of conclusion that is objective. The greatest thing about art is that it is all subjective. John sees things in Jane Eyre that Jill does not, and vice versa. If these seemingly elitist critics would acknowledge it, it might be a bit more fun. Granted they probably do, but whatever; I'm ignorant.

Not too much new. [Phineas Schlossberg]

New criticism, in of itself, isn't so bad. I like it more in many aspects than the other lenses, but, it doesn't really give me a new way of looking at the book. New criticism seems to be just reading the book as we do normally in class. Some interesting literary elements are noticed, such as the use of color throughout the book, but we had mostly addressed those during classtime before. What I like about new criticism is that it seems more reasonable and in context, other interpretations through different lenses can sometimes be a bit of a stretch. However, it seems that New Criticism is a bit close minded, just like all the other lenses. For example, if there was a clearly allegorical book written by a heavily communist writer, new criticism would ignore that, and look purely at the literal elements, ignoring a lot about the book.

One of my favorite book series, The Sword of Truth, by Terry Goodkind, are often allegorical in nature. I first read the series when I was younger, and read it again more recently, and I noticed many more political allusions, which, in my opinion, greatly added to the books, and I feel like they would be nearly completely ignored by new criticism.
Another thing about new criticism I don't necessarily like is the idea that there is one universal human truth about every reading. I prefer a certain level of subjectivity with reading, and I think that I could interpret a novel in the completely opposite, but just as correct, way as someone else.

New Critism (mae)

Gatsby itself didn't change much because the New Critical lens "has been a standard method of high school and college instruction in literary studies." (pg 135) I feel like the New Critical lens is something that everyone thinks about as they read the book, one of the reasons being because it was taught to us in school so it is something that is always in the back of our minds when we read new texts. I agree with the authorial intention saying that we shouldn't take in the authors history, but instead take in the authors words to analyze the written text. During analyzing Gatsby there were some parts that were stretched in order to fit the theory, and make connections. "Nicks youth was more real, more genuine, than the artifical atmosphere he assoiates wht his adult life" (pg 153) this part is saying that nick is unhappy with his adult life, with the phrase "new snow". I think that by seeing the text "new snow," it doesn't make sense that it could conclude to Nick being happier during his childhood rather than his adult years. Does every single line of the text have to mean something? Or can you make analysis about a text based on larger portions?

(Nate) Sure, Why Not

I have always approached Lois Tyson's essays with great skepticism. Whether it be purely coincidence or my own way of lashing out at homework in general I'm not sure, but I digress. For the first time while reading a sample critique from this book I actually found myself agreeing with Tyson's analysis. I agree completely that tension is, as she puts it, "...between the world of corrupt, vulgar materialism portrayed in the novel and the lyric imagery-..." (4)

This lens, looking at just the text itself, very much appeals to me. I've often found myself disagreeing with the other lenses we've dealt with, treating them as simply over thinking th text. After all, with enough thought you can derive far fetched ideas from the most simple of concepts that would never occur to someone unless looking through a specific lens.

I can't help but wonder though, if Fitzgerald really did choose each and every word ever so carefully, is it in fact reasonable to suggest he didn't have some deeper meaning to his words that what was visible on the surface?

New Criticism (Leslie)

While in previous theories and criticisms I had seen things I wasn't aware of before, new criticism just didn't have the same effect. In my opinion, this was rather repetitive because we were asked to do close readings of "The Great Gatsby" while we were reading it the first time, which is basically new criticism. The essay didn't evoke any thoughts that I didn't have before. The overall theme of overall longing was one we had discussed, among others. The symbolism in the reading is also nothing new. For example, we look at the green light, and the ideas Tyson points out are what we had brainstormed before. "And in becoming universal, Gatsby's longing also becomes nonspecific: for the protagonist, the green light represents Daisy;" (159). In the juxtaposition between the past and the present, Tyson points out that the readers see the theme of universal longing yet again. "...the image of young Gatsby revisiting Louisville after Daisy's departure, 'stretch[ing] out his hand desperately as if to snatch only a wisp of air, to save a fragment of the spot that she had made lovely for him' {160}, and of Tom Buchanan, 'drift[ing] on forever seeking a little wistfully for the dramatic turbulence of some irrecoverable football game' {10}, are hantting and painful because they bespeak an emptiness that can never be filled." (153). Despite the long quote, the message is quite simple: new criticism finds the symbols and themes of the stories through the tension and word choice. And long story short, I was not impressed with this essay. To me, most readings should be done using new criticism, but maybe that might JUST be me. Do other people feel this essay was redundant? Do we use new criticism without ever really noticing?

New Criticism (Lex)

After reading Lois Tyson's 'The "deathless song" of longing: a New Critical reading of 'The Great Gatsby'' I finally understand why I found so much pleasure in reading F. Scott Fitzgerald's 'The Great Gatsby.' While performing my close reading of the 'great American novel,' I was impressed with the fluidity of the writing, the depth of the descriptions, and the ease of the reading, but I never understood why the novel was so compelling to read. However, in her essay applying New Criticism to ‘The Great Gatsby,’ Lois Tyson proposes that the universal theme portrayed in the novel is that of “unfulfilled longing” (163). Someone reading this story will therefore be surrounded by descriptions of need and desire, such as Gatsby standing in the shadow of his house, reaching for the “green light” (21), and Daisy sitting in the “hot” (126) and “stifling” (126) hotel room, whining for a “cold bath” (126). With every lengthy description and choice word in ‘The Great Gatsby’ relating back to a yearning, the reader experiences that same uncontrollable longing. Unsure how to quell this emotion, the reader hungers to read more, with hopes that by the climax of the book their needs will be fulfilled. The theme of longing that Fitzgerald weaves into every aspect of ‘The Great Gatsby’ is what makes it such an enthralling book to read. New Criticism allows readers to fully understand the reading, regardless of the context. While criticisms that delve into the views of society and its effects on literature have a certain appeal, New Criticism, which looks at only “the text itself” (136), is the most pure and concrete type of literary criticism. When reading a book, it is essential to understand the theme of the writing and the message it is trying to convey. For this reason, I prefer New Criticism to the other types of critical theories. However, to those who do not completely agree with me, I pose this question: If you believe that in order to understand a text you need to set it in context with the society it was created in, why must the world affect literature? Aren’t texts reflections of the author’s own emotions, which, while influenced by society, can occur in any setting?

Justine: After Death, You're Still Longing?

Yet again, the "criticism of the week" failed to bring insights that I didn't have before. The notion that the theme is "[the] unfilled longing... part of human condition, common to all and inescapable," (152) shown through "Fitzgerald's lyrics imagery in... three ways...: (1) as nostalgia for a lost past; (2) as dreams of future fulfillment; and (3) as vague, undefined longing that has no specific goal" (152) is nothing new. It's obvious that all the characters are unsatisfied with there lives in some way. It is also obvious that even though Gatsby dies, he never stopped longing for Daisy. But that was while he was still alive. When you're dead, you're not longing for anyone anymore. You're dead. That's it. The end. Worm food.
Personally, I prefer using New Criticism. I know according to Lois Tyson, Psychoanalytical Criticism is the most approachable, but I don't find that true. Because we have used the four elements throughout our high school English classes it seems more relevant to start with New Criticism.
The only "critique" I have for this specific use on Gatsby is found on page 162: "... like the lovers carved on the Grecian urn in Keat's famous Ode: 'Bold, Lover, never, never canst thou kiss, / Though winning near the goal--yet, do not grieve; / She cannot fade, though thou hast no thy bliss, / For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!'
I'm sorry, but what? I understand that this shows unfulfilled longing, but I think it hinders Tyson's point. Earlier in the reading, Tyson mentions that Keats is Fitzgerald's favorite poet, however this quotation does not belong in this essay. The point of this section is to show the images of unfulfilled longing in Gatsby, not in this Ode.
In some eyes, this Ode could help, not hinder. In what ways does it hinder or help?

Gatsby on VPR!

Hi guys,

Hope you've had a great break. While I was driving home from grocery shopping tonight, I was listening to the NPR show Studio 360, and it was all about The Great Gatsby! There were many different authors and artists on the show, talking about how the book influenced them. There was also a segment on Gatz, the Broadway show that Justine posted about. The link to the Studio 360 website is here: http://beta.studio360.org/2010/nov/25/

My favorite quotation, from author Jonathan Franzen (who wrote The Corrections, an amazing book that I highly recommend): "In 50,000 words, he tells you the central fable of America...and yet you feel like you are eating whipped cream." :)

See you tomorrow!

Christie

Feminism (Phineas)

The Sexism in "The Great Gatsby" was fairly clear to me, atleast in some parts of the book, when I read it through the first time. The scene in which this was most obvious was when Tom and Gatsby argue over who Daisy loves, giving her very little say in the matter. In my mind, I always saw Tom as the more sexist character in the book, since he is the "evil" character, and one of the primary antagonists, however, it is clear that Gatsby is acting just as sexist as Tom.

One thing that I didn't notice that Tyson pointed out, is how progressive most of the females in the book are, what with Jordan being an athlete (a career mostly reserved for men), women going to parties alone, and generally indulging in partying just as much as the men, but the "party girl" lifestyle isn't necessarily shown in a good light.

That was really the only thing in The Great Gatsby that I didn't notice before reading Tyson's view on this, so it is fairly safe to say that a lot of what she said was either redundant, or pointing out the obvious. Much of the sexism or examples of feminism in TGG is obvious when read casually, or without any "lens" at all.

Feminism In the 20s (Josh)

After reading ""...and next they'll throw everything overboard...": a feminist reading of The Great Gatsby""my view of women and how they are portrayed in the novel was actually somewhat changed. Growing up in the 21st century I saw what we would consider today as the the extremes of patriarchy in the novel as quite the setback compared to the modern day, but when read in context they were actually a step forward: the parties at Gatsby's with single women by themselves, the solo driving trips, Jordan's professional sports status, all were quite progressive for the time. I never viewed the increasing independence of women in the novel as any exciting because it still seemed like quite the oppressive system, but Fitzgerald illustrates how women got increasing freedom during this time and how it affected society as a whole which at the time was still deeply patriarchal.

Tom's "double standard for women" is also something tackled in the piece; I agree that it stems from his deep belief in a patriarchal and how it is necessary for women to conform to gender roles in order for it to continue, much like his belief that whites are the superior race and that other races most be kept down for the white man to strive. This point made me realize how examples of deep set and out dated beliefs such as sexism and racism meet the 20th century through out the The Great Gatsby. Fitzgerald is commenting in the great change in the 2os and there could be no change greater than the beginnings of the feminist movement in the US and the tearing down of the patriarchal establishment.

"We know. we know. we know. I guess so. maybe. we know. Personal life?" [Milo]

Lois Tyson, in this chapter, has hit a bit of writer's block, in my opinion. From start to finish she's just making labels and naming situations that were starkly obvious from the beginning. Sure, Tyson says that when Tom breaks Myrtle's nose as punishment for talking to him, it's patriarchy, however, you can already guess that it's some due to the fact that he broke her nose because she was talking back, and he "punished" her. I don't know about you, but I didn't need to read Tyson's complaining to understand that it was sexist.
However, some of Tyson's motives for ranting are shown near the end of the chapter, She explains some situations where she was harassed of being a woman by people who had considerable power over her.

The Females are Escaping! (Christian)

In reading this chapter, there was one main theme throughout. She kept talking about the New Women, and if my understanding serves me right, The Great Gatsby is arguing that the New Women is actually a bad shift towards women, and they need to continue to be contained. For example, "they were never quite the same ones in physical person, but they were so identical one with another that it inevitably seemed they had been here before." This I felt was both a push and a pull for both sides. It was beginning to show the removal of the "old women", who were much more proper, and all looked roughly the same. This part begins to also demonstrate how that even with this wave of the New Women, they are still suppressed into a social class, and still look roughly the same. In the end, women are still trying to rise up, but they are also still heavily repressed.

Christian

Gatsby feminist post - Eliot

When reading The Great Gatsby and applying a feminist lens to it the dynamic between men and women takes on a new meaning deeper than the easily visible one. One of the scenes from Gatsby, which a feminist lens can be applied most effectively to, is when Gatsby, Tom, and Daisy are together conversing. ‘I want to know what Mr. Gatsby has to tell me.’

‘Your wife doesn’t love you,’ said Gatsby. ‘She’s never loved you. She loves me.’

‘You must be crazy!’ exclaimed Tom automatically. Gatsby sprang to his feet, vivid with excitement. ‘She never loved you, do you hear?’ he cried. ‘She only

married you because I was poor and she was tired of waiting for me. It was a terrible mistake, but in her heart she never loved any one except me!’

At this point Jordan and I tried to go but Tom and Gats- by insisted with competitive firmness that we remain—as though neither of them had anything to conceal and it would be a privilege to partake vicariously of their emotions. ‘Sit down Daisy.” (P-139-140)

This is a clear example of a patriarchal society. The men speak for daisy and command her without thought of her own will or opinions.

An example of stereotypical gender rolls and them being assigned is found in the books stated expectations of women.

“She was incurably dishonest. She wasn’t able to endure being at a disadvantage, and given this unwillingness I sup- pose she had begun dealing in subterfuges when she was very young in order to keep that cool, insolent smile turned to the world and yet satisfy the demands of her hard jaunty body.

It made no difference to me. Dishonesty in a woman is a thing you never blame deeply—“(P.64)

This obviously states that women will behave differently from men simply because they are women.

A third passage which a feminist lens might be applied to deals with social expectations again.

When the ‘Jazz History of the World’ was over girls were putting their heads on men’s shoulders in a puppyish, convivial way, girls were swooning backward playfully into men’s arms, even into groups knowing that some one would arrest their falls—but no one swooned backward on Gatsby and no French bob touched Gatsby’s shoulder and no singing quartets were formed with Gatsby’s head for one link. (P.55)

In this passage women play the stereotypical ‘fall into the man’s arms’ role.

"Bitch" (Tim)

While reading Tyson's "Next they'll throw everything overboard... " I realized how I can subliminally view of female characters as "bitches" solely for there aggressiveness, or their defiance of the paternal social structure. Fitzgerald uses his female characters to paint a pretty shady picture of the "New" woman. She is shallow (cheating, lying, blaming), irresponsible, and spoiled. I agree with Tyson when she says that the women who attend Gatsby's parties are "narcissistic attention-seekers in various stages of drunken hysteria" (page 123). Paying close attention to the women of the story reveals that it does not really empower women to be their own woman. In fact, it shows that when women try to be independent, they only make a fool of themselves: Dancing alone on the dance-floor, fighting, getting so drunk they must be carried out of the party, ect. To put it bluntly, it makes women seem to simple to be able to function well in the world of men. It changes my idea of Gatsby being a forward-looking view of society, that promotes equality amongst classes and genders, to one that presents a pretty awful view of women. What is the point of showing women in such a bad light? Is Fitzgerald trying to warn us about the dangers of the free woman? Or his he being ironic, and showing through sarcasm the pettiness of how we reduce women to being self absorbed bitches?

All as One (Lex)

By looking at F. Scott Fitzgerald's 'The Great Gatsby' through a feminist lens I have learned that the women in this novel are generalized into the role of wild beings who need to be controlled. This has hurt my view of the book for two reasons; first, because it brings to light the stubborn and uniform views of women as one group, rather than as individual people; and second, because it promotes male dominance and patriarchy. To start, Tyson argues that all of the "female characters are... versions of the New Woman" (122), which illustrates how Fitzgerald made each and every woman in his novel alike. This suggests that women do not matter as individuals, but rather as a part of society, confined to their gender roles. Tyson continues to state that said female characters are "portrayed as clones" (122), which further illustrates the lack of diversity within the role and status of a woman. Next, Tyson argues that these 'clones' are all "of a single, negative character type" (122), which shows how every woman in The Great Gatsby is portrayed as either "insincere" (122), "horrible" (123), or "narcissistic" (123). As Nick Carraway said, "dishonesty in a woman is a thing you never blame deeply" (63). This is because all women are the same, so if you blame one, you are blaming the entire lot of them, and how can you coexist with an entire sex of people who you dislike for lying or cheating? Finally, both Tyson and Fitzgerald suggest that the solution to this dilemma of our world of uniformly awful women is that the men take care of them. This can be seen at one of Gatsby's parties when two women are having a fight and their husbands break them up by "lift(ing them) kicking into the night" (57). Viewing 'The Great Gatsby' in this way ruins my interpretation of the book because now each of the individual female heroes appear less heroic, for how can one be heroic when they are a clone of society? While previously I sympathized with Daisy for the difficult emotional choices she has to make, I can no longer feel sorry for her while she is just another cog in the dreadful machine that is society. I now propose you, (the reader), these questions: Does Fitzgerald justify this 'common' view of women in the rest of the novel? What true differences do you notice between each of the female characters? Is the proper response for women's 'hysteria' (123) that men should deal with them?

Didn't Need a Lens to See That (Nate)

A single read through F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby will tip any reader off at the fact that Fitzgerald definitely had some feminist points to make. However, looking at it through a feminist lens, in my opinion, is simply redundant. The already prevalent points relating to oppression of women couldn't be more obvious .
"'Alright,' I said, 'I'm glad it's a girl. And I hope she'll be a fool--that's the best thing a girl can be in this word, a beautiful little fool.'" (Page 17)

This statement is showing that women in 1920s American Society cannot be another more than stupid, beautiful and powerless. Yes, this is feminism critique, but do you really need to be specifically looking for feminist statements to find it? No, not at all! Here's another example...

"'Your wife doesn't love you,' said Gatsby. 'She's never loved you. She loves me.'" (Page 130)
This statement by Gatsby is basically controlling Daisy's emotions without her say. You may think this is a bit less obvious, but I know for a fact one could come up with what I just said about Gatsby without knowing anything about feminist theory. My proof? Our own class, this was discussed during our seminar, and we had yet to learn anything about feminist lens.
So what can feminist lens give us in this book? Does it just reinforce what most people will discover on their first read, or is there something else there that I'm just not seeing?

Feminist Fitzgerald (Leslie)

In reading "Next They'll Throw Everything Overboard", I couldn't help but feel bored. Maybe it's just me, but I already viewed the women in "The Great Gatsby" the way they were portrayed through a patriarchal societal lens. But I don't think that makes me sexist; I don't think these women are unlikeable because they don't fit feminine "standards", I think these women are unlikeable because they don't have good personalities. For example, one might argue that the lens through which these women are viewed is sexist because the women aren't likeable because they aren't in touch with social standards: "Only two are married, and they don't keep their marital unhappiness a secret," (P.124), and "Daisy's life does not revolved exclusively around her maternal role. Finally, all three women violate patriarchal sexual taboos..." (P. 124). For me, the reason these women are unlikeable is because of their actions. "Daisy Buchanan is characterized as a spoiled brat and a remorseless killer." (P. 125). This isn't a sexist statement: she is spoiled because she doesn't think people beneath her are worthy, for example, she didn't want to marry Gatsby, whom she loved, because he wasn't wealthy enough. And Daisy did in fact kill Myrtle; therefore, that statement is just, and fact rather than a skewed, sexist statement. "Jordan is characterized as a liar and a cheat." (P. 125). Again, this statement isn't a skewed sexist statement; Jordan is a liar and a cheat. She cheated in a golf tournament, which led to the 'scandal', which eventually died down because of her "bribery or coercion". (P.125). And lastly is the characterization of Myrtle. "She's loud, obnoxious, and phony," (P.126). Despite her tragic death, Myrtle isn't one to be sympathized with; she takes advantage of her innocent, unassuming husband and cheats on him with a man that she uses for money and status. Thus, I believe that the female characters of "The Great Gatsby" are unlikeable not because they don't fit 'feminine standards', but because they are ruthless and conniving women. So if I don't think that this is a feminist reading, what would be a feminist view of "The Great Gatsby"? What do other people think that makes the female characters unlikeable?

Myrtle & Feminism (mae)

Through a feminist lens I learned that there are more “good girls” in the Great Gatsby, than there are “bad girls.” When I first read the Great Gatsby I didn’t think that Myrtle was a “bad girl,” I thought that tom had lured her though his wealth. Through the feminist lens Myrtle comes off as the one behind the scheme. She is only with tom because of his money, so that he can buy her stuff, and take her away from a class she doesn’t want to be apart of. “Myrtle had it coming.” (pg 127) This is one part of the feminist view that is drastic for me because when i had originally read Gatsby, I thought that Myrtle was the victim and not the one plotting. The question that is still in my mind is, if Myrtle wanted out so bad, what stopped her from trying to hook another wealthy man in addition to Tom?

Jordan: Masculine or Feminine (Sarah)

When reading The Great Gatsby, we see Jordan portrayed as masculine and having man-like qualities throughout the whole book. However, I would argue that although Jordan has masculine qualities associated with her, like making her own money, she is actually shown in a feminine light. In the beginning of the book, Fitzgerald writes "[with] Jordan’s slender golden arm resting in mine, we descended the steps and sauntered about the garden." No man in The Great Gatsby would be describe as slender or sauntering, therefore Jordan is being shown in a feminine light. Again in the novel, when "Jordan’s fingers, powdered white over their tan, rested for a moment in mine." This quotation shows how feminine Jordan actually is and how Fitzgerald may have wanted the reader to think she was masculine, but upon closer inspection she actually represents a feminine aspect of the book. Towards the end of the book, when she is going to play golf she is described as "her hair the color of an autumn leaf, her face the same brown tint as the fingerless glove on her knee." Ultimately, although major concepts of Jordan like her playing golf and making her own money may be associated with masculinity, she also represents a more feminine persona throughout the book. My question to pose to you is why would Fitzgerald do this, why would Jordan come off as masculine, but when you look closer her description and actions are associated with 'feminine' things?

Adam

Even at during our first reading of The Great Gatsby the oppression of women characters was obvious. The book takes place in the 1920's when women were first trying to break out of their set roles in a patriarchal society. Fitzgerald portrays any free movement or action by a woman in a negative light, yet when a man commits an equal or even identical offense it is let go as not a big deal. This can be seen especially easily with Myrtle's relationship with Tom. Her taking an agressive action and "getting" Tom is viewed in the book as irresponsible and immoral. Tom's relationship is equally immoral and irresponsible but he survives through the story. What's more, Myrtle is killed in a very symbolic and graphic way: "Michaelis and this man reached her first, but when they had torn open her shirtwaist, still damp with perspiration, they saw that her left breas was swinging loose like a flap, and there was no need to listen for the heart beneath." (pg 137) This obviously kills her while taking away her womanhood at the same time. Did she lose her womanhood during her death as a "consequence" for her actions? Or had she already lost her womanhood in the act of infidelity and the car crash was just it catching up with her?

Initially, when I read "The Great Gatsby," an observation I made about women in the novel was how there are no "good" or likable female characters. The main points that are discussed in this CTT essay are how these women are threats to patriarchy, and how each of them are punished on an individual level based on how badly they threatened patriarchal society. For instance, Myrtle is most extremely punished for her crimes against patriarchy. She is unfaithful to a faithful husband and disrespects his role as the head of the family. Daisy is also punished, but not to the extent a Myrtle is, which may have something to do with her class, or the fact that her husband is unfaithful, and therefore, it is less shocking for Daisy to seek another relationship. She also kills someone, but she is not the one to be most severely punished for that crime. The degree of punishment is related to the degree of threat to patriarchy, and no other offenses. Daisy having murdered someone does not affect her degree of punishment. Instead of being punished for murder, Daisy is punished for infidelity. Because Daisy does not get killed, like Myrtle, the only difference is the level of crime against patriarchy. Jordan's punishment is simply Nick's rejection. Her crimes against the male system are making her own money and having a relationship out of wedlock. Knowing these details about the book gives me an understanding of why there are no likable female characters. What I want to know is if this underling message was intentional social commentary, or simply the author's fundamental beliefs, whether he intended to relay them or not?

Daisy through Marxism (Sarah)

The Marxist interpretation of Gatsby, “You Are What You Own,” gives us a very clear perspective of Marxist theories and how the capitalist system of America plays a vital role in The Great Gatsby. However, one important aspect I feel Lois Tyson skipped over was Daisy. Daisy is seen as a commodity, something to be bought and sold. We can see the references of Daisy to money numerous times throughout the book, however, the most memorable is "Her voice is full of money," he said suddenly. That was it. I’d never understood before. It was full of money — that was the inexhaustible charm that rose and fell in it, the jingle of it, the cymbals’ song of it,”(120). At this point the reader realizes Daisy is a commodity, like money, that both Tom and Gatsby want. Seeing as Tom nor Gatsby represent old money, it is obvious they only want Daisy because she is true old money, however, what I still do not understand, and what I propose to you is why if Daisy represents true old money would she marry or love someone that was not old money (Tom or Gatsby)? Because through a Marxist perspective this would lower her social standing, which is the exact opposite of what all people are trying to achieve (in a capitalist system). Is this simply a flaw in the theory or does it say something deeper about Daisy and her intentions?

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?