"...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.