Sarah: Great Gatsby through Queer Theory

In Tyson's queer reading of the Great Gatsby, I thought she brought of two good points both relating to color. The first is the view of the two young women both dressed always in yellow dresses. As Tyson says " These two young women are a striking example of same-sex 'doubles' that function as lesbian signs...the women are portrayed dancing together at the party." (Tyson 344) When reading the book, I passed over the two women in yellow dresses, but Tyson brings up a good point in saying that the two women are the biggest examples of a queer dimension at Gatsby's parties.
Tyson also discussed Gastby's clothing, specifically his " various shades of lavender and pink, two colors that have been long associated with gayness." (345) Tyson talks about the way in which Gatsby's pink suit is portrayed in the novel. It is either showed in a romantic light, by Nick, and a criticized light, by Tom. I thought this was a good point because we have discussed Nick's questioned sexuality, and Tom's overly macho attitude and it supports all the theories we had already discussed.
Overall, I thought the color references Tyson brought up were important because we had talked a lot about color in class and with this new lens it adds just another layer to the plot. My question is do you think that there are more color references in The Great Gatsby that could be seen through a queer lens, and if so do you think Fitzgerald did that intentionally or not?

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."

Is the Deconstruction Correct? (Sarah)

Tyson’s deconstructive essay of The Great Gatsby gave another lens to see the book through. I could see how deconstruction theory would lead you to believe that the binary opposites in the book are not actually how they seem. For example when Tyson writes of how Nick’s narration and description actually leads one to believe that he holds the East as superior to the West could be true. However, this deconstructive essay did not leave me completely convinced. Although there is ambiguity in language, the action of Tom and Daisy running away from their problems had a clear meaning. Tom and Daisy were running away from their problems, and placing all their wrong doing in the hands of others. Also, in the end of the book, Nick “prepares to return once again to the Midwest” (Tyson 269). This final action of Nick ending up in the Midwest, (even though it was not one of the eggs) shows how ultimately he is happiest in the West and holds it above the “rotten crowd” (Fitzgerald 162) that is the Buchanans. Tyson’s deconstructive essay made me think about other possible meanings of The Great Gatsby, but in the end it simply was not enough to convince me and my question is was it enough to convince you and could the novel people refer to as a ‘classic’ actually mean the opposite of how society interpreted it?

George Wilson: The Hero?

Although George Wilson ends the love story "The Great Gatsby" by shooting the character whom Lois Tyson argues is "the romantic hero" (269) of the novel, in Tyson's "'...the thrilling, returning trains of my youth...': a deconstructive reading of The Great Gatsby," Tyson portrays George Wilson as the protagonist of the story, as he is the character who strives the most. First, Tyson lists all of the negative characters in the text, and then goes on to mention George Wilson, but states "even George Wilson" (268, my italics), inferring that George Wilson is not in any way tied to the villainy and treachery to which Tyson eludes. This separates George from the "exploit[ation], pollut[ion], and destr[uction]" (272) which Tyson describes, making George Wilson seem like a genuinely good-hearted person. Next, Tyson explains that of all the characters that obsess over "the pursuit of social status" (268), George Wilson is among one of "the only characters who don't seem to exhibit these behaviors" (268). This shows that he is not shallow, as the other characters are, and that he is, in fact, a hero of sorts, because he is "devoted to surviving the hopeless poverty of the 'valley of ashes'" (268), a truly difficult task. Finally, Tyson sums up the portrayal of George Wilson as the heroic character of 'The Great Gatsby' with the statement that he is the "only truly innocent character in the story. He harms no one, trusts everyone, and he is rather childlike in his simplicity" (274). These qualities are inherently good, and by associating them with George Wilson, Tyson glorifies this previously destructive character. Therefore, after understanding how the text of 'The Great Gatsby' deconstructs itself it is apparent that, through his separation from the inhumane evil of the rest of the characters, his striving to overcome poverty, and his incontrovertible innocence, George Wilson might very well be the only character in the story who is unfeignedly likable, and ergo, the true hero of 'The Great Gatsby.'