All as One (Lex)

By looking at F. Scott Fitzgerald's 'The Great Gatsby' through a feminist lens I have learned that the women in this novel are generalized into the role of wild beings who need to be controlled. This has hurt my view of the book for two reasons; first, because it brings to light the stubborn and uniform views of women as one group, rather than as individual people; and second, because it promotes male dominance and patriarchy. To start, Tyson argues that all of the "female characters are... versions of the New Woman" (122), which illustrates how Fitzgerald made each and every woman in his novel alike. This suggests that women do not matter as individuals, but rather as a part of society, confined to their gender roles. Tyson continues to state that said female characters are "portrayed as clones" (122), which further illustrates the lack of diversity within the role and status of a woman. Next, Tyson argues that these 'clones' are all "of a single, negative character type" (122), which shows how every woman in The Great Gatsby is portrayed as either "insincere" (122), "horrible" (123), or "narcissistic" (123). As Nick Carraway said, "dishonesty in a woman is a thing you never blame deeply" (63). This is because all women are the same, so if you blame one, you are blaming the entire lot of them, and how can you coexist with an entire sex of people who you dislike for lying or cheating? Finally, both Tyson and Fitzgerald suggest that the solution to this dilemma of our world of uniformly awful women is that the men take care of them. This can be seen at one of Gatsby's parties when two women are having a fight and their husbands break them up by "lift(ing them) kicking into the night" (57). Viewing 'The Great Gatsby' in this way ruins my interpretation of the book because now each of the individual female heroes appear less heroic, for how can one be heroic when they are a clone of society? While previously I sympathized with Daisy for the difficult emotional choices she has to make, I can no longer feel sorry for her while she is just another cog in the dreadful machine that is society. I now propose you, (the reader), these questions: Does Fitzgerald justify this 'common' view of women in the rest of the novel? What true differences do you notice between each of the female characters? Is the proper response for women's 'hysteria' (123) that men should deal with them?

Nick Carraway

Throughout the entire book, we have watched Nick Carraway get walked all over by Ms. Jordan Baker, used by Gatsby to get to Daisy, and used by Daisy to get to Gatsby. In the final chapter of the novel, due to the loss of Gatsby, we finally hear his opinions voiced, and he is not afraid to tell people what he really thinks. "'What's the matter, Nick? Do you object to shaking hands with me?' 'Yes. You know what I think of you.'" (p. 178, conversation between Tom and Nick). And another example of Nick finally voicing his opinions is, "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy" (p. 179). Yet another example is when Klipspringer called, and Nick hoped it would be Klipspringer saying he would attend the the funeral. Rather, Klipspringer avoided the request and asked for Nick to mail him his tennis shoes (the original intent of his call). "I didn't hear the rest of the name, because I hung up the receiver." (p.169). The nerve of Klipspringer to not even acknowledge Gatsby's death sent Nick into a tailspin, a never before seen quality of Nick. Before Gatsby's death, Nick was a voiceless entity; he didn't even remember when his birthday was until the actual day, and it wasn't even of importance to him. The juxtaposition between Nick's voicelessness and the voicing of his opinions leads us to wonder why? Why is it now that Nick doesn't care about cushioning the truth, or being blunt? Is it just because of Gatsby's death that Nick suddenly has a spine, or is it something else? What is making Nick act so different?

Gatsby and Myrtle.. ehhhh?

As we are seeing more and more through out the Novel Gatsby is a man of impulse, and one of no excuses. Although he has a history with Daisy it would be quite the plot twist for Gatsby to end up with his crush's husband's mistress. Myrtle, the whimsical and impulsive girl would almost fit in seamlessly with Gatsby and his own crazy habits. If Daisy and Tom find that flame or what ever, leaving both Gatsby and Myrtle out of the picture it would make sense that they some how find each other in the tangled mess that is the love square created by the four characters.

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?

A Reason for Nick's Unreliable Narration

Although I agree that Nick’s narration is bias, I believe Fitzgerald has a reason for portraying each character through a negative lens, rather than a neutral or positive lens. I believe Fitzgerald biases Nick’s views in order to show change throughout the novel. Readers like to see dynamic characters; characters that change over the course of the novel, rather than static characters, who are the same no matter what. I do not know how Fitzgerald will choose to show the transformation. He might alter Nick’s views or thoughts on the other characters, showing his change of opinion towards them. However, Fitzgerald might choose to alter the other characters actions thereby changing the way Nick views them.
A perfect example would be Tom. Everything the reader knows about Tom so far, Nick has not agreed with or there has been a negative connotation associated with him. “It’s up to us, who are the dominant race, to watch out or these other races will have control of things.” (p.13) This is one of Tom’s revealing moments, leading the reader to believe he is a bad person. However, Fitzgerald could be showing us the bad in characters only to slowly bring out the good. I am not positive this is correct, but I was trying to bring a different perspective to Fitzgerald’s narration. This is my answer as to why there are negative connotations associated with every major character. My real question is, why is Fitzgerald only showing the “bad” side of characters, especially if they are not going to change? Any other thoughts on why he would do this?

Nick: Not a Reliable Narrator

In my opinion, Nick is not a reliable narrator. First of all, he comes from a middle-upperclass snobby family, and the apple never seems to fall far enough from the tree. "My family have been prominent, well-to-do people in this Middle Western city for three generations." (p. 3). Within the first few pages, he is describing the wealth and fortune his family owns, due to a hardware business passed down each generation. Despite breaking free of family molds and going into the bond business, Nick still has a snobbish nature. For example, when he goes to visit Daisy and Tom Buchanan, the animosity Tom feels for Nick is apparent to the readers. Nick's take on the situation is, "I always had the impression that he approved of me and wanted me to like him..." (p.7).
While narrators can, and usually do have skewed perspective, I think Nick's is too small a window to look at the other characters through. Readers are supposed to be able to make judgements on the characters themselves, but I feel Nick's opinion is too strong for the readers to get to that point. Every other character in this book, Nick describes them with a negative connotation: Tom is abusive, Daisy is cynical, Ms. Baker is lazy, Mrs. McKee is shrill, Mr. McKee is meek, and so on. I think that Nick judges the other characters too harshly, and denies the readers an opportunity to judge the characters themselves. A question I pose is: if Nick's opinion on the characters is ignored, how would you perceive the characters? If that's too broad, I pose another question: Despite Nick's current opinions, which current character do you think Nick would/will become closest to throughout the span of the book?

The Roaring Twenties

Stylistically speaking, we have been told that Fitzgerald sets many of his scenes during parties. So far, there have been two gatherings of some sort. In each, Nick has met at least one new person, and formed an opinion about him or her quickly. Whether he is biased or not remains unseen to me. I do not agree that he is 100% neutral. It's possible, but I am not convinced yet. His opinions of people are harsh. Tom is not a good person, but I doubt he's as horrible as Nick believes. To me, Tom has a temper, and gets bored easily. I wouldn't want to associate with him, but he must have his good points. However, so far, all we are seeing are his bad points, described by Nick.

The reason for my post though is not to discuss Nick's narration, but the setting of the novel. It takes place in the summer of 1922, a time of jazz and prohibition; one of ten years that constitute as the "roaring twenties." What I'm wondering is why that's such a popular time to write about. Couldn't this novel have taken place at a different time? Coming from a theatre geeks prospected, the roaring twenties is almost cliché because it is so over-used. And in each play, musical or novel I've seen or read, there has a been at least one moment of illegal drinking. Now those two words have a different meaning these days, but back then, alcohol was illegal. I don't understand why this common denominator exists. The question I'm posing is: Why the twenties?

Introduction: Words from F. Scott Fitzgerald

The first four paragraphs of the Great Gatsby are a message from the author to the reader, describing the lens through which he intends to portray his thoughts. In the first paragraph, Nick introduces a quote from his father, which tells him to consider a person's history before judging them. This is Fitzgerald's way of letting the reader know that he has done his research, and that all future criticism in the book is based off of reality and not skewed interpretations. Next, Nick states that he is 'inclined to reserve all judgements,' or in other words, will not be biased. This, again, is the author, proving to the reader that he will be fair with his assessments of other people and their actions, and will not show unnecessary rudeness, or state untruths. Finally, Nick mentions an 'intimate revelation' which he has had. In this introduction, Fitzgerald is promising to portray said 'intimate revelation' to the reader, and writes almost as though the entire purpose of the book is to do so: to share his newly crafted ideas with the world. However, is it possible to tell everything exactly as you see it? Is there a way to enlighten the world on something you have noticed but to do so in a way that is fair to everyone involved in said enlightenment? This question may not have a yes or no answer, so I pose you one more: What can an author do, in terms of writing techniques, literary devices, or simply word choices, to convey to the reader that they have an unbiased view on the matters that they are discussing?