(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?