(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.