Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Simple Economics of Life... man -- Josh
Friday, October 29, 2010
Interesting Points... (Willie)
Adam: possessions are evil
Pull the Strings!!! (Milo)
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)
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.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
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)
Marxist lens Change the Way Gatsby Characters are Viewed
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Justine: Money, Money, Money... It's a Rich Man's World
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)
Monday, October 18, 2010
Captain Obvious Comes to the Rescue... (Willie)
(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.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Unproven Statements of Daisy (Julian)
Textual Evidence - Lex
Who's interpretation? (Phineas)
That's what keeps coming to my mind whenever we look at the book through different "lenses."
What a second hand emotion (Josh)
Convenient Love (Tim)
Never Enough Lovers...(Christian Frey)
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?
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
(Nate) Or... Maybe You're Wrong?
Loves Outlets. (Mae)
Leslie: What's Love Got to Do with It? Nothing!
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Words for Concepts (Milo)
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
Friday, October 15, 2010
Justine: Love Has Nothing To Do With It
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Eggs... (Willie)
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Why Did F. Scott Fitzgerald Write This Book? (Willie)
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
An incontrovertible reduction of Gatsby's omnipotent fiefdom (why Gatsby is insecure) (Julian)
Monday, October 4, 2010
The Green Light (Julian)
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Valley of the Ashes (Julian)
The Very Last Sentence
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
Past, Present and Future
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?