(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?