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.'