Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Queer Theory (Lex)
I agree completely with Lois Tyson's queer reading of the Great Gatsby. For the majority of my reading of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" I was noticing all of the ways in which the narrator, Nick, seemed to be homosexual. Nick's feminine characteristics do well to support the argument for his homosexuality on their own, but this essay offered far better evidence than his lack of masculinity. The combination of Jordan Baker's masculinity and Jay Gatsby's femininity, along with the attractions that Nick has for both of these gender-defying characters, scream to the reader that there is no other logical explanation than the existence of Nick's homosexuality. This, however, most readers could deduce on their own. What I most appreciated about Lois Tyson's reading was how it connected the ambiguity of Nick's sexuality with the ambiguity of the text. This connection, now that I realize it, seems obvious, although it clearly was not. Nick's position as the narrator means that the entire text is based off of his character and his views. If Nick's views are non-straight, that changes the entire perspective of the text from heterosexual to homosexual. I think it would be beneficial to anyone interested in furthering this study of Nick's homosexuality and its effect on the text's ambiguity to read "The Great Gatsby" again, this time with the knowledge that everything is seen from the perspective of a gay man. Furthermore, I believe that this aspect of the text in fact raises the complexity of the novel. This book is irrefutably a novel of romance, but this romance gains a layer of meaning when one realizes that this book is, in fact, a critique of heterosexist relationships through the eyes of a homosexual. With each new theory applied, the intricacy of "The Great Gatsby" skyrockets in a way that is hardly fathomable. I am baffled at the knowledge that I am only beginning to understand the incredible complexity of this novel, and can only hope that the theories to come with continue to add these layers of depth to the "Great American Novel."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you that Nick is both a homosexual and that he is critiquing the heterocentrism of the Eggs. I'm curious as to how this critique would be portrayed if the story was told from a straight character's perspective. Nick could just be critiquing the shallow society that exists on these two peninsulas. For example, on page 348 Tyson quotes his assessment of New York as "this unprecedented place" "that Broadway had begotten upon a Long Island fishing village" , and a mystical wonderful place. I'm curious if that is simply a result of his boredom with the midwest after the war, or does it, as she says, have more to do with because "Broadway was a gay cruising area in New York City at this time (Chauncey 146) and because the theatrical profession has always been associated, whether accurately so or not , with sexual tolerance and experimentation." Is his passion for this place because of his need for excitement as a person of any orientation, or because of a newfound acceptance as a homosexual?
ReplyDelete