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 Why couldn't it have been that Daisy was withdrawn notbecause she learned that Gatsby was of a poor heritage, but because he had been lying to her about how he had earned his money?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?