New Criticism (Lex)

After reading Lois Tyson's 'The "deathless song" of longing: a New Critical reading of 'The Great Gatsby'' I finally understand why I found so much pleasure in reading F. Scott Fitzgerald's 'The Great Gatsby.' While performing my close reading of the 'great American novel,' I was impressed with the fluidity of the writing, the depth of the descriptions, and the ease of the reading, but I never understood why the novel was so compelling to read. However, in her essay applying New Criticism to ‘The Great Gatsby,’ Lois Tyson proposes that the universal theme portrayed in the novel is that of “unfulfilled longing” (163). Someone reading this story will therefore be surrounded by descriptions of need and desire, such as Gatsby standing in the shadow of his house, reaching for the “green light” (21), and Daisy sitting in the “hot” (126) and “stifling” (126) hotel room, whining for a “cold bath” (126). With every lengthy description and choice word in ‘The Great Gatsby’ relating back to a yearning, the reader experiences that same uncontrollable longing. Unsure how to quell this emotion, the reader hungers to read more, with hopes that by the climax of the book their needs will be fulfilled. The theme of longing that Fitzgerald weaves into every aspect of ‘The Great Gatsby’ is what makes it such an enthralling book to read. New Criticism allows readers to fully understand the reading, regardless of the context. While criticisms that delve into the views of society and its effects on literature have a certain appeal, New Criticism, which looks at only “the text itself” (136), is the most pure and concrete type of literary criticism. When reading a book, it is essential to understand the theme of the writing and the message it is trying to convey. For this reason, I prefer New Criticism to the other types of critical theories. However, to those who do not completely agree with me, I pose this question: If you believe that in order to understand a text you need to set it in context with the society it was created in, why must the world affect literature? Aren’t texts reflections of the author’s own emotions, which, while influenced by society, can occur in any setting?

Textual Evidence - Lex

Lois Tyson's "What's Love Got to Do with It?" draws many valid conclusions about "The Great Gatsby," but some of her generalizations are sub-par. First, Tyson suggests that Daisy has hidden "psychological motives" (41) that cause her to love Tom because he cheats on her. While the depths of psychology are something on which I have limited knowledge, I find it nearly impossible to believe that someone can have such intuition that their body makes its own, independent choices in such a was as Tyson describes. Next, Tyson states that "(f)or both Tom and Daisy, fear of intimacy is related to low self-esteem" (42). Clearly, Tom has few issues with self esteem, as seen when he says that he belongs to the "dominant race" (17). Similarly, Tyson concludes that Daisy's fear of intimacy can be seen in her "artificial behavior toward (her) child" (43), but the behavior that Tyson describes, "'Bles-sed precious,' she crooned, holding out her arms. 'Come to your own mother that loves you'" (122-23) is certainly dramatic, but not fake. Daisy's affection for her child is simply portrayed in a different way than Tyson, for instance, would show love for her own child. Finally, Tyson generalizes that "(Daisy's) extramarital affair, like her earlier romance with her lover, would not have occurred had she knows that Gatsby does not belong to her social class" (45), and she backs this by saying that "Tom's revelation of Gatsby's social origin... results in Daisy's immediate withdrawal" (45). This is incorrect and inconclusive. Why couldn't it have been that Daisy was withdrawn notbecause she learned that Gatsby was of a poor heritage, but because he had been lying to her about how he had earned his money? Daisy was in a situation where it had been revealed to her that the love of her life wasn't completely honest with her, and that to me seems like a valid enough excuse to pull away from him, rather than Tyson's speculations that Daisy withdrew from Gatsby because he was no longer at the same status as she was. Tyson makes many broad accusations and conclusions from evidence that does not altogether support her points, and this significantly decreases her credibility. Was Tyson wrong to manipulate the facts her way, or is that something that every writer must do?

East Egg VS. West Egg

The difference between East Egg and West Egg is similar to the East and West of America. The people from the East seem to be more uptight and stricter than those of the West. In my opinion, the most significant from this chapter was the view on women. Tom, a person of the East, frowned upon "Daisy's running around alone" (p.103). On the opposite side, people of the East show up to parties they aren't invited to, and drink like there is no tomorrow. "'When she's had five or six cocktails she always starts screaming like that.'" (p.106). Another example of the West being looser than the East is Gatsby: marriage is a thing to be respected. Tom and Daisy don't get a divorce even though Daisy knows about the affair, and Tom wants to be with Myrtle, but marriage is too sacred to end it: a typical, Eastern, strict belief. But from a Western, looser, Gatsby perspective, he is planning to end the marriage between Daisy and Tom; a marriage isn't as important to him as it is to Easterners. A question I pose is, where does Daisy fit into the East VS. West? She doesn't seem opposed to being with Gatsby, but she hasn't divorced Tom, so where does that leave her?

Chapter V, A Glimpse into Gatsby

In chapter V of The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald shows us a glimpse inside Gatsby’s vulnerable side. Up until this point in the novel, Fitzgerald has kept Gatsby mysterious, and in the dark. Just a chapter before, Nick says “My eyes fell on Gatsby, standing alone on the marble steps and looking from one group to another with approving eyes.” This quote keeps Gatsby at a distanced, almost an unattainable entity with a slight air of arrogance about him. However, in chapter V, this cover is shattered when Daisy renters Gatsby’s life. He turns into a child-like figure, unsure of how to act, something the reader has never seen before. My question is why has Fitzgerald chosen to keep us a secret to Gatsby’s life up until this point? Would it have changed the book if we were able to see more of Gatsby’s real personality? Personally it would make Gatsby more relatable if we had seen this side of him earlier in the book. Any other ideas?

Fire vs. Water - Lex Jackson

In chapter 5 of The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald compares Gatsby and Daisy to fire and water, respectively, to emphasize how they have grown apart. The chapter opens with a description of Gatsby's house as 'blazing.' (p.81-83). However, starting with Daisy's arrival, and continuing throughout the duration of her stay, there is 'increasing rain.' (p.86-96). Similarly, at the exact moment when Gatsby first sees Daisy, he is 'standing in a puddle of water,' (p.85), a metaphor for his being in her company. The juxtaposition continues in descriptions of the two characters. Gatsby is described as 'glowing' (p.89) and 'radiating,' (p.89), with a smile of 'recurrent light' (p.89) and a voice containing 'feverish warmth,' (p.96), all images of fire. Inversely, Daisy has a 'damp streak of hair' (p.85) and 'wet hands,' (p.85), as well as a voice that 'ripples,' (p.85), a face 'smeared with tears,' (p.89), and a tendency to cry 'stormily,' (p.92), all images of water. The differences between these two characters tell the reader that Gatsby and Daisy have lived in two separate worlds for too long, and cannot coexist as fluidly as they used to. Regarding their future together, do you believe that these opposing lifestyles will hinder their relationship, pushing Gatsby and Daisy apart, or that the saying 'opposites attract' will hold strong, and their differences will unite these two long lost lovers? 

Gatsby

The mysterious Gatsby... Nobody quite knows what to make of this fellow. Some say he was a German spy, others say he killed a man. Whatever his story is has yet to be determined, but all we know is he is a wealthy, wealthy man who hosts large parties. He seems to have an aura about him, a positive aura, that rubs off on other people when he is near them. "Only Gatsby, the man who gives his name to this book, was exempt from my reaction- Gatsby, who represented everything for which I have an unaffected scorn." (Pg. 2). Nick has nothing but criticism for every other character in this book, except for Gatsby. In fact, he spends about half of a page describing in great detail how nice of a smile Gatsby has. Gatsby is the kind of man that when a girl ripped her dress at his party, he sent her a brand new one, free of charge. What I'm wondering is, how far off are his guests' speculations? Is Gatsby truly "just a nice guy"? Or is he hiding something? If he is, what could it possibly be? And where is the relationship between Gatsby and Nick going?