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.