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?