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?
I agree that some of the gay signs did hold some merit, such as the attraction of Nick to his 'lady back home', and her mustache of perspiration. However, I would disagree with association of opposite sex traits as homosexual. For example, on the bottom of page 345, she mentions "Gatsby's other possessions also function as gay signs. Much of the decor of his house is extravagantly feminine." (345 CTT) This takes it to the extreme, and behavior/material goods that are stereotypically related to the other sex does not imply homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to your first question, it appears that the 'Death of the author' is not in play, for one reason or another. I did not find it helped or hurt the reading, though. If that section were removed, it would not affect my view. As for the second question, I would say that by using Nick as a narrator, we can not judge one description or another, as his opinion is thrown in. A more unbiased narrator might describe such an item differently, and the same assumptions of homosexuality might not hold up.
I agree with Christian on the last comment. Since we see the story through the eyes of Nick, we cannot be sure of the sexual orientation of the rest of the characters. Nick obviously struggles with his sexual orientation, and therefore emphasizes characteristics about other characters that translate to gay or lesbian signs. However, I still believe we can read Gatsby through a Lesbian, Gay, and Queer lens using most of the gay and lesbian signs to back up the theory. It does not matter if the narrator skews the perspective of the story for that is all the reader sees.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you, Justine, about the unnecessary mention of the love triangles. How does the fact that all of the couples are "breaking their marital vows"(343) contribute to the text having a queer interpretation? That part is a bit of a stretch; I do not believe because he frowns upon promiscuity and premarital "affairs," that he is therefore gay.