Interesting Theory (Willie)

Lois Tyson's tendency to exhibit obsessive compulsive behavior in regards to facts and, fairly often, factoids, becomes extremely excessive and monotonous after, say, 20 pages. I'll just say "hyperbole" and leave that issue alone. With that said, her African-American critique of The Great Gatsby raises an idea that I never, throughout all of the time we spent reading and analyzing it, had come to think of; that is, the fact that blacks and black culture are all but entirely omitted from the text. In the context of her arguments, this reveals a layer of racism not inherently evident in the novel. However, returning to Tyson's disposition towards stretching facts and hypnotic methods of indoctrinating her readers, one must realize that her theses bring to the table a number of fallacies. In this essay, she constantly mentions that Fitzgerald was attempting to create an almost textbook description of the '20s in New York. What she fails to mention is that the primary locations in which the novel takes place, East and West Egg, are not technically real locations. On top of this, it is a novel and not a textbook. This, to a degree, undermines the idea of the theory in the first place, but I think that shows the weakness and fragility of race-, gender-, and sex-based criticism. That opens up a whole new can of worms, though...

Racist- Joseph Paul Carrara III

What if Fitzgerald is/was in fact a racists? As beautifully described by Lois Tyson, the man does a quality job describing the time period the way it was. All the while leaving out the fact that black people exist, or had any effect in his days. Not even the slightest notation of black culture in the novel truly does allow us to judge Mr. Fitzgerald. I agree with Lois in her remarks of Fitzgerald’s ability to weave the happenings of the day into his text in clever and discrete ways. For example on pg. 397 of CTT in the 3rd paragraph on the page, Tyson brings up the part in The Great Gatsby, when Tom brings “the bottle of whisky ’wrapped… in a towel (127; ch. 7)’” and tells how the line regards prohibition. This is the perfect example of Fitzgerald’s genius ability to throw in hints of major time changing events into his story. It would be far to easy for him to comment on black society if not hint at it in the slightest way. It’s not looking good for our acclaimed author. Tyson gets him again by blaming him for insinuating that white people created jazz as seen on pg. 405 of CTT "the novel gives the credit for jazz symbolically to whites." Since Lois Tyson says is true, and there is no way Fitzgerald did not know jazz was created through black culture, why would he insinuate it was created by white people? We have come to conclusion. One of the most famous writers of all time is clearly Racist.

Leave F. Scott alone ... (Josh)

After reading Tyson's 13 page criticism of the Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald I was rather surprised by Tyson's ideas presented through out the essay. It is understandable to analyze the details in such a novel but Tyson truly takes it to the next level, grasping at straws so far removed from a logical argument that it was awkward to read the essay at times. Tyson tries to argue that Fitzgerald's thorough description of the time period which somehow manages to leave out the Harlem renaissance and the activity in the jazz clubs in Harlem during the time makes the novel a racist work. Sure Fitzgeral does describe the Great War, popular hair styles, entertainment icons, and the new found american love affair with automobiles, among other things but for the most part avoids mentioning most aspects of African American culture; I would agree that technically speaking the text is racist simply because of its lack of Black culture through out the piece, but that conclusion would be through a new-african american criticism lens as opposed to a lens that takes into account author intent. Fitzgerald tried to keep the novel short a sweet for reasons which we can only speculate, but that fact that the Great Gatsby is only 218 pages long certainly has contributed to its popularity and timelessness; if Fitzgerald had started to discuss a topic such as Harlem or other African American aspects the novel would surely have taken on a much longer length simply because of how complex the topics were. Fitzgerald wrote the Great Gatsby to give a view into a very specific time and very specific area of that time period, and he did an excellent job at describing the lives of the wealthy in the roaring 20s but in order to keep the novel on its intended course he had to leave out some aspects that might have forced a switch in focus at times.

A Stretch, Even for Tyson (Leslie)

I will give credit where credit is due: some characters within The Great Gatsby are racist, and Nick's racist statement about the African Americans, calling them, "two bucks and a girl".(Gatsby, 73). However, his response is even more offensive: "I laughed aloud as the yolks of their eyeballs rolled toward us in haughty rivalry." (Gatsby, 73). Despite the racist attitude of the characters, my agreement with Tyson stops there.

The part that annoyed me most was when Tyson said that the whites "stole" jazz from the African Americans. "Apparently, Fitzgerald decided not only to remove African Americans from his representation of the Jazz Age, but he also decided to remove jazz from the hands of the African Americans who invented it. For the novel gives the credit for jazz symbolically to whites. The only musicians we see playing jazz are the white musicians at Gatsby's party." (Tyson, 405). If Tyson considers it racist for whites to play jazz music, 'stealing' it from African Americans, then in Tyson's eyes, it must be racist for African Americans to play classical music, because that would be stealing it from Beethoven, or Mozart, right?

Something else that really bothered me was how she spent so long writing about the "sense of place", but only a few pages on actually why the text was racist. If she can only provide a few pages of why the text is actually racist, and some of those pages are examples of how Fitzgerald himself was a racist, that does not provide a strong argument for the text. Yes, Fitzgerald was a racist, but Tyson cannot prove that is the reason the Harlem Renaissance was excluded from the book. The author's intent is never truly known, therefore Tyson is just spit-balling; after rambling for a little while, she hopes that one of her arguments appears to be strong enough.

After reading Tyson's essays, I have said that all of them are stretching it to be plausible; however, I found that this one stretches it the most. Yes, some characters are racists, yes the Harlem Renaissance was omitted; that doesn't make the text racist and offensive to African Americans. I have a few questions after reading this: Do you think that having a racist author automatically makes the text racist? Is ignorance/omission considered racism? Do you think that the Harlem Renaissance had any effect on the text, but just wasn't included in the text?

Jazz was created by whites???

This reading was surprising to the say the least, especially in the conclusions she formed. For one, she (Tyson) says "the novel gives the credit for jazz symbolically to whites." (Tyson 405) I thought that this was slightly misleading, and I feel that she is saying only blacks can create jazz, and that statement is racist in and of itself. Another note I agree with slightly more is the absence of Harlem in The Great Gatsby, as noted on page 404 of CTT. It does seem peculiar that Harlem is not mentioned, but there are multiple ways into Manhattan, and may be justified. The lack of mention of the Jazz clubs is suspicious, however.

I don't feel that it changes my reading too much, but more raises my attention to this lack of scenery. The lack of Harlem in The Great Gatsby is far too suspicious to warrant ignore it and should be brought to light. The bit on the giving of jazz to whites was a bit far fetched, and could be omitted.

A question: Do you think the bit on the giving of jazz to whites was well concluded? Could it have been omitted? should it have been expanded on?

-Christian

Justine: The Jazz Age... Without Harlem

The Harlem Renaissance was a vital part of the 1920s. Considering that Fitzgerald coined the term "Jazz Age," it is a little ridiculous that Harlem was never mentioned in Gatsby. And yes, some of the characters are racist. However, all agreement with Tyson's essay stops there.

First, Tyson spends 5 pages discussing Fitzergerlad's "strong evocation of a sense of place" (396). However, apparently his evocation was not strong enough. Without Harlem, Fitzgerald forgot an essential part of 1920s New York City, therefore making the "sense of place" incomplete. But how incomplete? Just because Harlem was crucial during the same era in which the novel occurs does not mean that Harlem would have added to the storyline. Frankly, the omission does not seem as serious as Tyson describes it.

Second, Tyson's essay includes a 3 page description of Harlem itself. It is well known that "Harlem's nightclubs... offered such jazz greats as Eubie Blake, Fats Waller, Louis Armstrong, Bessie Smith, Duke Ellington, and Cab Calloway [who all] attracted white people from all over the city and beyond" (402). The term "Harlem Renaissance" exists because it was a cultural movement that affected music and written works everywhere. This entire section could have been either edited or cut all together. The essay would not have suffered without it. We are learning about literary criticism, not the history of Harlem. We read these essays to learn how to use criticisms.

And third, Tyson yet again fails to follow through with her concept of "The Death of the Author." Let's face it: Fitzgerald was a racist. He believed the United States should "raise the bars of immigration... and permit only Scandinavians, Teutons, Anglo-Saxons and Celts to enter" (408). However, it is not possible to prove author intent from text alone, therefore this argument is unrelated to the essay.

We were told this essay was complex, and that Tyson knew what she was doing. Be that as it may, I cannot agree. In this essay, Tyson used textual evidence from Gatsby in conjunction to African American criticism on only 3 pages of this essay. Considering the essay is 13 pages long, that number is too few. Yes, she used textual examples to show the "sense of place," but that did not relate to using the criticism itself. This essay disappointed me. It did not give any new insights on the novel, or change my reading of Gatsby.

Great Gatsby Comics

http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=259

Thought these might be appreciated. Enjoy.

-Nate

Queer Theory (Nate)

Quite honestly, I found most of the assertions made in this essay quite far-fetched. Perhaps it is because my all around skepticism of queer theory, but most of this seems nit-picky and frivolous, to use some big words.

Allow me to explain my reasoning. In a theory such as Marxist, it's a fact that every object gives sign-exchange value, and when patriotism is being used then it's being used. That's that. However in queer theory everything is about stretching the meaning of words or calling one thing or another a "symbol". For example, the essay reads at the top of page 344 "These two young women are a striking example of same-sex 'doubles' that function as lesbians signs; they look like, talk alike, are dressed alike, are apparently inseparable..."So why is this a lesbian sign?? Just because there's two characters who are identical doesn't mean that the author is trying to convey some queer symbol, that's quite frankly absurd.

That's not to say however that I don't believe there's anything worthy of mention in Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. Another example given on that same page is instance in which Nick is extremely drunk and suddenly finds himself "standing beside [Mr. McKee's] bed and [Mr. McKee] was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear..." There's no doubt that when this scene was written, Fitzgerald definitely knew it could at least be interpreted as evidence for Nick being gay, even if that wasn't the true intent.

All in all, this essay has not convinced me of queer theory's legitimacy. I find it all around too desperate for any symbols that it takes apart things that have nothing to do with homosexuality, often because there was clearly no intent to reference homosexuality in the text itself. Anything which does give some feel for a queer theme will already be obvious enough that this theory would be unnecessary.

"...And That's All He's Saying" (Julian)

I would like to preemptively say that, overall, I agree with Tyson's queer analysis of The Great Gatsby. Although the text is ambiguous at best, I feel that the ideas and experiences (primarily regarding Nick) could easily be related to by a homosexual individual, and help normalize the concept of a society that fully accepts non-heterosexual relationships.

That being said, I can not help but disagree with her thoughts on the section where Nick possibly sleeps with another man, Mr. McKee. Obviously, from a queer perspective, this scene is incredibly important. Although there is weight in the subtle, ambiguous hints of homosexuality all throughout the novel, this is the only scene with the possibility of real, homosexual intercourse.

For Starters, Tyson suggests that Nick is attracted to McKee, due to his awareness of the lather on McKee's face, which somehow implies "Nick's fastidious attention to McKee's grooming." (Tyson 344). I must beg to differ. While spotting some pet hair or unwashed spots could imply "fastidious attention," a spot of lather, on someone's face, is something incredibly hard to miss. In my mind, Nick's deliberate narration of his observation could more easily be seen as a recognition of wealth (lather was not common nor cheap back then), or a personal attempt at establishing superiority.

Secondly, Tyson seems to intentionally point out, "Nick's 'following him' out of the room, the lunch invitation..." (Tyson 344) What exactly is Tyson trying to prove? Do I display a homosexual attraction if I invite a male friend to lunch, or if I follow him somewhere? In this part, Tyson seems to be attempting to stretch nothing into something.

Finally, and most importantly, Tyson seems to hastily assume that "whatever occured in the interim has the status of a repressed memory," (Tyson 345) in regards to Nick's lack of recollection of the previous night. Once again, where did she get this notion from? Yes, this part is ambiguous, and gives no real clues as to the events, but that does not give her free passage to throw out wild assumptions left and right. What we do know is that Nick was under the influence of alcohol, something known to cause a temporary loss of memory when over-consumed. Did Nick get drunk, have sex with Mr. McKee, remember it, then unconsciously repress the memory, leaving the alcohol with no involvement? One in a million chance. Once again, I consider this section to be a jumble of unfounded, wild assumptions at best.

The Great Gatsby is an incredibly ambiguous lens, and theory itself is meant to take specific perspectives with the help of that ambiguity. That being said, any criticism should have some basis of provable facts. There are a myriad of statements in even the most homophobic texts that could be seen as homosexual with enough stretching, but in reality have no such value. While Tyson's reading of The Great Gatsby has, overall, excellent points and conclusions, this particularly crucial section, in my opinion, was her weakest.

Sarah: Great Gatsby through Queer Theory

In Tyson's queer reading of the Great Gatsby, I thought she brought of two good points both relating to color. The first is the view of the two young women both dressed always in yellow dresses. As Tyson says " These two young women are a striking example of same-sex 'doubles' that function as lesbian signs...the women are portrayed dancing together at the party." (Tyson 344) When reading the book, I passed over the two women in yellow dresses, but Tyson brings up a good point in saying that the two women are the biggest examples of a queer dimension at Gatsby's parties.
Tyson also discussed Gastby's clothing, specifically his " various shades of lavender and pink, two colors that have been long associated with gayness." (345) Tyson talks about the way in which Gatsby's pink suit is portrayed in the novel. It is either showed in a romantic light, by Nick, and a criticized light, by Tom. I thought this was a good point because we have discussed Nick's questioned sexuality, and Tom's overly macho attitude and it supports all the theories we had already discussed.
Overall, I thought the color references Tyson brought up were important because we had talked a lot about color in class and with this new lens it adds just another layer to the plot. My question is do you think that there are more color references in The Great Gatsby that could be seen through a queer lens, and if so do you think Fitzgerald did that intentionally or not?

A view from the closet (Tim)

From Tyson's analysis of The Great Gatsby, it is hard not to miss the obvious hints of Nicks bicurious viewpoint and narrative perspective. I think it was hard for us to notice without Tyson's help because all of the gay signs are coming from the first person. That means that a well groomed, homosocial guy that is obsessed with Gatsby (himself rather flamboyant) would normally raise some flags, but because we see the story from Nicks perspective, its easier to miss. Nick's sexuality appears"almost puritanical" (Tyson, 349) in attempt to both cover his homosexuality and to lead us readers away from the conclusion that Nick was in the closet. Nick also has frequent heterosexual flings to cover for his repressed homosexual feelings.

I think Fitzgerald used transgressive sexuality to make the homosexual undertones seem less alien: If at every turn there is a sordid affair or a drunken girl flaunting her sexuality, a little guy-guy love does not make the readers uncomfortable. Had he not included the flood of sexual themes, we may not have been so willing to accept Nick as a reliable, "normal" guy. The added fact that we see the story from Nick's perspective further normalizes the idea of a non-heterocentric society.

Joey: Believe it or not

I agree with Mrs. Tysons queer reading of The Great Gatsby because we discussed these same suspicions in class before we even knew about queer theory. Tyson keeps on suggesting it takes a trained eye topull these hidden sexual sings from the novel but I disagree.Just leave it to the teenagers of the world to turn everything into an overtly sexual reading and suspect everything of being gay. That aside i do agree with her statements but i disagree that they are part of a subtext. I think the sings are there for a reason and came out because of the writers personality, not because he wanted to hint at topics such as these. I have a feeling if you were to ask Fitzgerald if there were any hints at queer characters or subjects in his novel he would firmly tell you no and live by it. In regards to the book being a heterocentric novel, I dont think it would have become so popular if all the couples in the story were gay couples. I think the society during the time period in which this novel first came out would have been opposed to the idea of a romantic storyline based around gay couples and thus the fame this book has come to know would never have come to be.

Queer Theory (Lex)

I agree completely with Lois Tyson's queer reading of the Great Gatsby. For the majority of my reading of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" I was noticing all of the ways in which the narrator, Nick, seemed to be homosexual. Nick's feminine characteristics do well to support the argument for his homosexuality on their own, but this essay offered far better evidence than his lack of masculinity. The combination of Jordan Baker's masculinity and Jay Gatsby's femininity, along with the attractions that Nick has for both of these gender-defying characters, scream to the reader that there is no other logical explanation than the existence of Nick's homosexuality. This, however, most readers could deduce on their own. What I most appreciated about Lois Tyson's reading was how it connected the ambiguity of Nick's sexuality with the ambiguity of the text. This connection, now that I realize it, seems obvious, although it clearly was not. Nick's position as the narrator means that the entire text is based off of his character and his views. If Nick's views are non-straight, that changes the entire perspective of the text from heterosexual to homosexual. I think it would be beneficial to anyone interested in furthering this study of Nick's homosexuality and its effect on the text's ambiguity to read "The Great Gatsby" again, this time with the knowledge that everything is seen from the perspective of a gay man. Furthermore, I believe that this aspect of the text in fact raises the complexity of the novel. This book is irrefutably a novel of romance, but this romance gains a layer of meaning when one realizes that this book is, in fact, a critique of heterosexist relationships through the eyes of a homosexual. With each new theory applied, the intricacy of "The Great Gatsby" skyrockets in a way that is hardly fathomable. I am baffled at the knowledge that I am only beginning to understand the incredible complexity of this novel, and can only hope that the theories to come with continue to add these layers of depth to the "Great American Novel."

Just saw this article on-line...

It seems that the NY mansion that inspired Fitzgerald to write the novel is going to be razed... to make room for $10 million subdivisions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/08/great-gatsby-mansion-insp_n_832954.html

"Good job, old sport!"

Ok, so the title was based on the last phrase Gatsby says on the first level in the little NES video game. (Hint!: while wearing a golden fedora, hold attack to make your hat fly farther!)

Now, Queer theory, which I shall refer to as "Queory" sniffs out a plethora of situations in The Great Gatsby. personally the one situation that caught me off guard was the Jordan and Nick's last conversation. Nick has been pointed out as possibly being attracted to other men, and Jordan has been described in more masculine terms than all the male characters combined (specifically "Jaunty"). And what really puts a nail in perfectly-heterosexual-novel-of-the-century-award's coffin, is in fact the "Bad driver conversation" which at first sounds a bit like a bonding conversation, turns out to be an alleged "coming out" for Nick and Jordan's Bisexuality. I was blown away at around midnight by this concept. Now, for Queory in general, I believe the topic does generally hold ground. I've read short stories and heard about and watched clips and films, that have had these homosexual signs, and now I actually have some phrases to point them out with.
On a side note however,
Gatsby choice of colors is a bit of a stretch for finding Qeory themes. Even though pink and lavender are generally effeminate colors, the whole concept of "Rainbow Flag" and the like happened 50 years after the book was publish.
AND Lois Tyson has many legit theories, but it's such a shame she's a man-hating monster with a troubled past, which she regularly drags into her book.

Question time, OK... Do you think Nick new the entire time that he was bisexual? or do you think he discovered this as the story went, tried to combat it with a fling with Jordan, and then found he couldn't hide it?
Kinda made that a binary question, but I've been trapped inside my house with very sick people for over four days, so I'm a little weird.

Mae: Feminine vs. Masculine

Queer theory criticisms opens up a lot of new prospectives on the characters movies for their actions and their personalities in general. One example, is Jordan Bakers gender neutral name. Although she is a girl, the narrator describes her in such ways that are masculine. "She [Jordan] makes her living in the, then, male domain of professional golf." (346) By playing a role on a male dominated profession, it gives her a more masculine quality, and there for masculine features. Gatsby, on the other hand is given female qualities, he has an "impeccable wardrobe featur[ing] various shades of lavender and pink, two colors that have been long associated with gayness." (345) I think because Nick the narrator is the one focusing on all of these characteristic, he is creating a bias. A bias, that could be creating an illusion that Jordan is lesbian, Gatsby is gay or they are both bi. Either way the readers would not be getting the true personalities of Gatsby or Jordan because of the Nick's struggle with finding his true identity, which is backed up by Lois Tyson's essay. " his perceptions may result from his own projects( he has gay desire, so he sees signs of it in others), or he may be sensitive to the queer aspects of Gatsby's and Jordan's sexuality because he share them or both." (349) This quote also results in Nick having his own struggle on identifying who he is, which throws off the story line by giving it an underlying plot.

The question I pose is, if Nick is truly gay or bi, then does his sexuality affect the readers? If so how are the readers really supposed to know the characters if their narrator is bias? Also how many layers of relationships and stories can there be in just the Great Gatsby?

The Great Gatsby Video Game... Sweeping the Nation!

Here's the link. I say we have a class competition to see who can get the highest score!!

http://greatgatsbygame.com/

Justine: Honestly, the Title Was the Best Part

As far as critical readings go, I actually enjoyed this one. Although, we had spoken in class about "Jordan Baker [being] associated with numerous lesbians signs... [in addition to being] frequently described in masculine terms" (346) and "Nick [Carraway as] a repository of gay signs... that underscores the homoerotic dimension of his characterization" (347), we did not discuss the heterosexual love triangles or the parties.

In my opinion, the section on the love triangles is fairly worthless and unimportant. The fact that the most of the relationships are "adulterous" holds next to know merit. Yes, it is morally wrong, but as Tyson points out later on, the morality of the novel is narrated by Nick, who strives so hard to seem morally right that he loses his credibility.

The explanation of the homoerotic undertones of the parties were particularly fascinating, in particular the two girls dressed in yellow. We spent so much time in class finding the colors, but never analyzed those two girls, "who are a striking example of same sex 'doubles' that function as lesbian signs: they look alike, talk alike, are dressed alike [and] are apparently inseparable" (344).

There are two part about which I am confused. First, in criticism, we are not supposed to think about author intent, correct? Then why does Tyson discuss Fitzgerald's sexual curiosity, if not his orientation? Second, why does Tyson show the gay and lesbian signs in the description of Gatsby and Jordan, when she then discredits these same descriptions because they are "projections" of Nick's desires?

East and West (Julian)

Tyson's deconstructive reading of "The Great Gatsby" provides a rare opportunity to completely oppose the very foundation's that has made it one of the greatest American novels. This is not to say that it "disproves" or somehow "de-emotionalizes" the book, but Tyson says it, "can help us understand the ideological limitations of that [emotional] investment." (Tyson 278) Her points regarding George Wilson were particularly solid. Her clever use of quotations and text revealed that although Wilson is the one "innocent" character, he "has almost no personality at all," (Tyson 274) and is often viewed in a negative light. On the other hand, I was left fairly unconvinced with her points regarding East versus West. For example, she points out that while the novel often focuses on "a structure that opposes East and West," this is undermined in part because "Chicago and Detroit are in the Midwest." (Tyson 275). While she proves that there is a sense of ambiguity, I feel that even from a factual/logical standpoint the West can still be seen as the "countryside." Even today (after much industrialization and modernization has occured) the vast majority of the west is either undeveloped or farmland, leaving little room for the occasional urban sprawls. While Chicago and Detroit are part of the moral decay so prevalent in the novel, they were but a small percentage of the land that was otherwise free. In conclusion, I feel that many of Tyson's points are valid and can at least let us question the novel's limitations, however some of the novels points regarding East vs. West can be seen as legitimate, even from a cold factual perspective.

Deconstruction of Gatsby (Josh)

Tyson's deconstructive criticism of the Great Gatsby left me in a bit of a predicament as a reader; through out reading the piece I found my self going back and forth on the validity of Tyson's argument. Her thesis seems quite simple, Tyson writes: "...the text's most most persuasive and overt ideological project: the condemnation of american decadence in the 1920s, which replaced forever the wholesome innocence of a simpler time." (267) After this statement I was in agreement with Tyson, F Scott calling for a return to a simpler time in the Great Gatsby doesnt seem all that far fetched. As I read on though I found myself taking issue with certain examples pulled from the text which I felt obviously were intended to have a different meaning to the reader. It is not so much with Tyson lies my issue I realize: its with the theory itself.

Criticisms can be wildly objective but Deconstructive Criticism seems to take it to the next level. Tyson presented some arguments that I can believe were perfectly legitimate from her point of view, but when a theory doesn't lend itself to popular application, that is the ability for a large number of readers to settle on a certain conclusion, I see it being more counter productive than anything else; creation of discussion can be helpful but it needs to be more than biased ramblings to do so. Deconstructive criticism made me think about the novel through a new lens, but a lens I feel is neither beneficial or illuminating for the reader.

Deconstruction Worker-Phineas

Deconstructive criticism seems to be a bit out of place amongst the other criticisms we have studied. All of the others seem to have much more of a real world application to them, one could change how they regularly go about their lives if they were to dedicate themselves to the ideology of, for example, feminism or marxism. Deconstructive criticism strays away from these other theories, and gives us a completely different way of looking at the world. One thing I like about deconstructive criticism is that, to me, it can be either perfectly objective, or completely subjective. It can deconstruct a text down to the base meanings of the words, and try to glean a meaning from that in as objective a manner as possible, but at the same time the base theory will also point out that everything can be interpreted and seen differently based on the person.
As f0r Tyson's deconstructive reading of the book, I had mixed feelings. To be perfectly honest, I am tired of hearing about George Wilson. In the entire book there are only a handful of characters, and the vast majority of them are wealthy. I think that instead of being the apparently virtuous downtrodden working class man, George Wilson might just be the unlucky, and weaker one. If given the opportunity, I have no doubt he would act just like the other more 'corrupted' characters in the book, and after all, he did murder Gatsby. Yes, admittedly he was in a bad state of mind, but when it comes down to it he made the decision to murder someone based off of what one man said. Also, the death of his wife was an accident, and he knew it, and he chose to get petty revenge over an accident. When it comes down to it, I think Wilson is just as bad as the rest.

(Nate) Deconstruction of Gatsby

Though it is a rare occurrence, in the case of Lois Tyson's deconstruction of Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, I must admit that I found myself for the most part agreeing with what the Tyson had to say. There is certainly a measure of things changed as far as my viewing of the novel goes since I before I read this chapter of Tyson's Critical Theory Today. To start, while I certainly saw the contrasting sides of East vs West, I was admittedly ignorant to the concepts of Decadence vs Innocence which is a quite obvious theme throughout the novel. What's more, I now see Gatsby in a different light than before. I definitely did not view him as the romantic symbol others may have. My own thoughts were that he was simply out of his element which is what caused him to act irrationally and made him bumble his way into the presumed role of romantic hero. The reading however gives a strong point using textual evidence that he is just as decadence crazed as the rest.

The question I must ask, however, is whether everything Tyson, or any deconstructive reader, brings forward is correct at all? If these inner meanings truly do exist, then why didn't the author make them obvious from the start?

(Willie) Deconstruction Paper

Deconstructive criticism, at least as it appears to me, is not necessarily a criticism but a philosophy. When you really look at what it is saying, the primary message is that everything is subjective. One can draw many conclusions from a single text; or, many can draw many conclusions from a single text. Either one fits. The problem I see here is how loose this is in the way in which it is applied to literature. One can look at the signifieds of a given text and explain the many signifiers that arise from them–"I grasped my bow" could mean anything from "I held my musical device designed to assist me in playing musical instruments" to "I seized my weapon" to "I hastily grabbed my necktie" (potentially due to strangulation)–or, they can speak of the different interpretations which arise from signifiers. For example, one might see the struggle between HAL and Dave in 2001: A Space Odyssey as symbolic of the dangers humanity faces with their use of technology or a statement against absolute monarchy and placing absolute power in the hands of one individual.

With all of that said, applying this to The Great Gatsby is rather difficult. There are, however, a few minor elements of the story that we can deconstruct. For example, when we look at Jay Gatsby's success in life, we primarily see a man who has exploited the American Dream to become rich illegally (a bizarre irony in and of itself). We can disregard this notion altogether, though, and leave the American Dream completely out of the question. Suddenly, we can see that Gatsby is simply representative of a novel that supports drug use. It sends out the message that drugs and alcohol are good and an easy way to get rich in life is by selling them. In other words, if you want to get rich easily, sell drugs. That is what Fitzgerald uses Gatsby's character to say.

Is the Deconstruction Correct? (Sarah)

Tyson’s deconstructive essay of The Great Gatsby gave another lens to see the book through. I could see how deconstruction theory would lead you to believe that the binary opposites in the book are not actually how they seem. For example when Tyson writes of how Nick’s narration and description actually leads one to believe that he holds the East as superior to the West could be true. However, this deconstructive essay did not leave me completely convinced. Although there is ambiguity in language, the action of Tom and Daisy running away from their problems had a clear meaning. Tom and Daisy were running away from their problems, and placing all their wrong doing in the hands of others. Also, in the end of the book, Nick “prepares to return once again to the Midwest” (Tyson 269). This final action of Nick ending up in the Midwest, (even though it was not one of the eggs) shows how ultimately he is happiest in the West and holds it above the “rotten crowd” (Fitzgerald 162) that is the Buchanans. Tyson’s deconstructive essay made me think about other possible meanings of The Great Gatsby, but in the end it simply was not enough to convince me and my question is was it enough to convince you and could the novel people refer to as a ‘classic’ actually mean the opposite of how society interpreted it?

Gatsby Won't Deconstruct Itself

So far Lois Tyson has written on each of the criticisms we have studied in a manner that at least appears cohesive and with a purpose. I am still not clear as to if it is simply the nature of deconstructive criticism or if the actual text of Gatsby does not lend itself to deconstructive theory, but the arguments she puts together seem to be a stretch. Not to deconstruct the textbook, but in the very conclusion Tyson contradicts her hypothesis that "this ideological project is undermined by the inseparability in the text itself of past and present, innocence and decadence, and West and East." (278) when she says that a "deconstructive readon of The Great Gatsby surely will not eliminate an emotional investment..."(278). If the deconstruction of the book cannot void the emotional polarity of past and present, West and East in American culture, how can it truly have deconstructed the book? Any theme that runs so deep through a book as the theme of time will have an emotional impact upon the reader. In fact, if the theme in question does not make the reader feel something then how can the theme really convey any message if not expressly stated.

George Wilson: The Hero?

Although George Wilson ends the love story "The Great Gatsby" by shooting the character whom Lois Tyson argues is "the romantic hero" (269) of the novel, in Tyson's "'...the thrilling, returning trains of my youth...': a deconstructive reading of The Great Gatsby," Tyson portrays George Wilson as the protagonist of the story, as he is the character who strives the most. First, Tyson lists all of the negative characters in the text, and then goes on to mention George Wilson, but states "even George Wilson" (268, my italics), inferring that George Wilson is not in any way tied to the villainy and treachery to which Tyson eludes. This separates George from the "exploit[ation], pollut[ion], and destr[uction]" (272) which Tyson describes, making George Wilson seem like a genuinely good-hearted person. Next, Tyson explains that of all the characters that obsess over "the pursuit of social status" (268), George Wilson is among one of "the only characters who don't seem to exhibit these behaviors" (268). This shows that he is not shallow, as the other characters are, and that he is, in fact, a hero of sorts, because he is "devoted to surviving the hopeless poverty of the 'valley of ashes'" (268), a truly difficult task. Finally, Tyson sums up the portrayal of George Wilson as the heroic character of 'The Great Gatsby' with the statement that he is the "only truly innocent character in the story. He harms no one, trusts everyone, and he is rather childlike in his simplicity" (274). These qualities are inherently good, and by associating them with George Wilson, Tyson glorifies this previously destructive character. Therefore, after understanding how the text of 'The Great Gatsby' deconstructs itself it is apparent that, through his separation from the inhumane evil of the rest of the characters, his striving to overcome poverty, and his incontrovertible innocence, George Wilson might very well be the only character in the story who is unfeignedly likable, and ergo, the true hero of 'The Great Gatsby.'

Deconstruction

The deconstruction of The Great Gatsby is basically combining new criticism with the other views Lois Tyson has used through out the book. I would like to comment on how lois tyson focuses a lot on deconstructing the older things she says about the book rather then the book its self. "The novel's overt ideological project- the condemnation of american decadence in the 1920s, which replaced forever the wholesome innocence of a simpler time- is undermined by the texts own ambivalence toward the binary opposition..." (pg267) This is Tyson giving the book an "overt ideological project" and proceeding for the next 2 pages to tear down the previous statement she made. Her deconstructive criticism has not changed my view on The Great Gatsby because of its synonymous discoveries to the previous criticisms. I think deconstructive criticism should be applied to other aspects of the book that Tyson did not chose. Such as the reasoning behind the messed up relationships. Using deconstructive criticism on the relationships of the book would give us yet another entirely new insite on the novel and not just repeat the previously said discoveries like "in which there is a male dominated world." (pg.268)

What would be the best aspect of the book to apply deconstructive criticism to? would it change the way we look at the story?

Elsa: Questioning the Meaning of the Binary Oposition

When I read the novel, I did not see these obvious binary oppositions. I saw only the more innocent points of view, and I did not see the overt corruption. It is clearer after reading the deconstruction, how both Gatsby and Nick lose their innocence and child like hope.

The deconstruction of The Great Gatsby has a flaw in my opinion. The binary opposition of the past and present, innocence and decadence, east and west is seen as a flaw, or an inconsistency and some how detracting from the essence of the novel. This binary element in the novel is essential. In relation to people it makes the characters seem more real and believable because of their conflicting natures. Gatsby’s innocence is balanced against his corrupted ways toward achieving the goals he made in his innocence. In this way he is the epitome of both opposites: he is “romantic symbol” (270) and his manners “which echo the chivalry of the past, ill suit him to survive the shallow vulgarity of the time in which he lives.” (270) In addition, in the present time, Gatsby’s chivalrous manners become his undoing. His corrupt ways undermine his romantic ideas of winning Daisy’s affection but it is his only way to try and achieve those desires by gaining wealth to please Daisy.

Nick himself is in the same position as Gatsby, showing up in NY innocent, wide eyed, and excited about the possibilities in the old city. In the novel, Nick, contrary to Gatsby’s end, goes home, back to his innocence, where Gatsby dies because of these personal traits. Gatsby is an old style, chivalrous gentlemen, while a criminal gangster, which do not mix well. I just don’t agree with the deconstruction argument that the book has ambivalence. The book can still “condemn the modern world” (267) but the binary elements that make up the characters and the nostalgic look towards the past and west are what give these characters their depth and reality.

Would this novel have been better with less ambivalent themes and characters? Wouldn’t it be a completely different story?

Justine: The Decontruction of Gatsby

My general understanding of Deconstructive Criticism is to study what is the "accepted" interpretation and then prove how it contradicts itself, using binary opposition. The critique of Gatsby further instilled this understanding, showing the "text's own ambivalence toward the binary oppositions on which that ideological project rests: past/present, innocence/decadence, and West/East." (266) The point of the essay was to show that the common interpretation of the text's "condemnation of American decadence in the 192os..." (267) is actually untrue; that the text actually recommends the decadence.
This critique did not change my perspective of the book. To me, Gatsby did not have one set interpretation. I had noticed before Nick's childlike awe of the East's decadence, and how he seems in a way "obsessed" with their culture. Also,through my eyes, the characterization of Gatsby showed both sides of the binary opposition as well.
What I wonder is why this criticism is so far back in the book. Christie mentioned in class how the criticisms are put in order by most approachable to least, but is it not human nature to disagree sometime with the popular decision, at least for some? It seems much more approachable than parts of the other criticisms at least. Other opinions?