Mae: Feminine vs. Masculine

Queer theory criticisms opens up a lot of new prospectives on the characters movies for their actions and their personalities in general. One example, is Jordan Bakers gender neutral name. Although she is a girl, the narrator describes her in such ways that are masculine. "She [Jordan] makes her living in the, then, male domain of professional golf." (346) By playing a role on a male dominated profession, it gives her a more masculine quality, and there for masculine features. Gatsby, on the other hand is given female qualities, he has an "impeccable wardrobe featur[ing] various shades of lavender and pink, two colors that have been long associated with gayness." (345) I think because Nick the narrator is the one focusing on all of these characteristic, he is creating a bias. A bias, that could be creating an illusion that Jordan is lesbian, Gatsby is gay or they are both bi. Either way the readers would not be getting the true personalities of Gatsby or Jordan because of the Nick's struggle with finding his true identity, which is backed up by Lois Tyson's essay. " his perceptions may result from his own projects( he has gay desire, so he sees signs of it in others), or he may be sensitive to the queer aspects of Gatsby's and Jordan's sexuality because he share them or both." (349) This quote also results in Nick having his own struggle on identifying who he is, which throws off the story line by giving it an underlying plot.

The question I pose is, if Nick is truly gay or bi, then does his sexuality affect the readers? If so how are the readers really supposed to know the characters if their narrator is bias? Also how many layers of relationships and stories can there be in just the Great Gatsby?

The Great Gatsby Video Game... Sweeping the Nation!

Here's the link. I say we have a class competition to see who can get the highest score!!

http://greatgatsbygame.com/

Justine: Honestly, the Title Was the Best Part

As far as critical readings go, I actually enjoyed this one. Although, we had spoken in class about "Jordan Baker [being] associated with numerous lesbians signs... [in addition to being] frequently described in masculine terms" (346) and "Nick [Carraway as] a repository of gay signs... that underscores the homoerotic dimension of his characterization" (347), we did not discuss the heterosexual love triangles or the parties.

In my opinion, the section on the love triangles is fairly worthless and unimportant. The fact that the most of the relationships are "adulterous" holds next to know merit. Yes, it is morally wrong, but as Tyson points out later on, the morality of the novel is narrated by Nick, who strives so hard to seem morally right that he loses his credibility.

The explanation of the homoerotic undertones of the parties were particularly fascinating, in particular the two girls dressed in yellow. We spent so much time in class finding the colors, but never analyzed those two girls, "who are a striking example of same sex 'doubles' that function as lesbian signs: they look alike, talk alike, are dressed alike [and] are apparently inseparable" (344).

There are two part about which I am confused. First, in criticism, we are not supposed to think about author intent, correct? Then why does Tyson discuss Fitzgerald's sexual curiosity, if not his orientation? Second, why does Tyson show the gay and lesbian signs in the description of Gatsby and Jordan, when she then discredits these same descriptions because they are "projections" of Nick's desires?

East and West (Julian)

Tyson's deconstructive reading of "The Great Gatsby" provides a rare opportunity to completely oppose the very foundation's that has made it one of the greatest American novels. This is not to say that it "disproves" or somehow "de-emotionalizes" the book, but Tyson says it, "can help us understand the ideological limitations of that [emotional] investment." (Tyson 278) Her points regarding George Wilson were particularly solid. Her clever use of quotations and text revealed that although Wilson is the one "innocent" character, he "has almost no personality at all," (Tyson 274) and is often viewed in a negative light. On the other hand, I was left fairly unconvinced with her points regarding East versus West. For example, she points out that while the novel often focuses on "a structure that opposes East and West," this is undermined in part because "Chicago and Detroit are in the Midwest." (Tyson 275). While she proves that there is a sense of ambiguity, I feel that even from a factual/logical standpoint the West can still be seen as the "countryside." Even today (after much industrialization and modernization has occured) the vast majority of the west is either undeveloped or farmland, leaving little room for the occasional urban sprawls. While Chicago and Detroit are part of the moral decay so prevalent in the novel, they were but a small percentage of the land that was otherwise free. In conclusion, I feel that many of Tyson's points are valid and can at least let us question the novel's limitations, however some of the novels points regarding East vs. West can be seen as legitimate, even from a cold factual perspective.

Deconstruction of Gatsby (Josh)

Tyson's deconstructive criticism of the Great Gatsby left me in a bit of a predicament as a reader; through out reading the piece I found my self going back and forth on the validity of Tyson's argument. Her thesis seems quite simple, Tyson writes: "...the text's most most persuasive and overt ideological project: the condemnation of american decadence in the 1920s, which replaced forever the wholesome innocence of a simpler time." (267) After this statement I was in agreement with Tyson, F Scott calling for a return to a simpler time in the Great Gatsby doesnt seem all that far fetched. As I read on though I found myself taking issue with certain examples pulled from the text which I felt obviously were intended to have a different meaning to the reader. It is not so much with Tyson lies my issue I realize: its with the theory itself.

Criticisms can be wildly objective but Deconstructive Criticism seems to take it to the next level. Tyson presented some arguments that I can believe were perfectly legitimate from her point of view, but when a theory doesn't lend itself to popular application, that is the ability for a large number of readers to settle on a certain conclusion, I see it being more counter productive than anything else; creation of discussion can be helpful but it needs to be more than biased ramblings to do so. Deconstructive criticism made me think about the novel through a new lens, but a lens I feel is neither beneficial or illuminating for the reader.

Deconstruction Worker-Phineas

Deconstructive criticism seems to be a bit out of place amongst the other criticisms we have studied. All of the others seem to have much more of a real world application to them, one could change how they regularly go about their lives if they were to dedicate themselves to the ideology of, for example, feminism or marxism. Deconstructive criticism strays away from these other theories, and gives us a completely different way of looking at the world. One thing I like about deconstructive criticism is that, to me, it can be either perfectly objective, or completely subjective. It can deconstruct a text down to the base meanings of the words, and try to glean a meaning from that in as objective a manner as possible, but at the same time the base theory will also point out that everything can be interpreted and seen differently based on the person.
As f0r Tyson's deconstructive reading of the book, I had mixed feelings. To be perfectly honest, I am tired of hearing about George Wilson. In the entire book there are only a handful of characters, and the vast majority of them are wealthy. I think that instead of being the apparently virtuous downtrodden working class man, George Wilson might just be the unlucky, and weaker one. If given the opportunity, I have no doubt he would act just like the other more 'corrupted' characters in the book, and after all, he did murder Gatsby. Yes, admittedly he was in a bad state of mind, but when it comes down to it he made the decision to murder someone based off of what one man said. Also, the death of his wife was an accident, and he knew it, and he chose to get petty revenge over an accident. When it comes down to it, I think Wilson is just as bad as the rest.

(Nate) Deconstruction of Gatsby

Though it is a rare occurrence, in the case of Lois Tyson's deconstruction of Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, I must admit that I found myself for the most part agreeing with what the Tyson had to say. There is certainly a measure of things changed as far as my viewing of the novel goes since I before I read this chapter of Tyson's Critical Theory Today. To start, while I certainly saw the contrasting sides of East vs West, I was admittedly ignorant to the concepts of Decadence vs Innocence which is a quite obvious theme throughout the novel. What's more, I now see Gatsby in a different light than before. I definitely did not view him as the romantic symbol others may have. My own thoughts were that he was simply out of his element which is what caused him to act irrationally and made him bumble his way into the presumed role of romantic hero. The reading however gives a strong point using textual evidence that he is just as decadence crazed as the rest.

The question I must ask, however, is whether everything Tyson, or any deconstructive reader, brings forward is correct at all? If these inner meanings truly do exist, then why didn't the author make them obvious from the start?