Joey: Believe it or not

I agree with Mrs. Tysons queer reading of The Great Gatsby because we discussed these same suspicions in class before we even knew about queer theory. Tyson keeps on suggesting it takes a trained eye topull these hidden sexual sings from the novel but I disagree.Just leave it to the teenagers of the world to turn everything into an overtly sexual reading and suspect everything of being gay. That aside i do agree with her statements but i disagree that they are part of a subtext. I think the sings are there for a reason and came out because of the writers personality, not because he wanted to hint at topics such as these. I have a feeling if you were to ask Fitzgerald if there were any hints at queer characters or subjects in his novel he would firmly tell you no and live by it. In regards to the book being a heterocentric novel, I dont think it would have become so popular if all the couples in the story were gay couples. I think the society during the time period in which this novel first came out would have been opposed to the idea of a romantic storyline based around gay couples and thus the fame this book has come to know would never have come to be.

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."

Just saw this article on-line...

It seems that the NY mansion that inspired Fitzgerald to write the novel is going to be razed... to make room for $10 million subdivisions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/08/great-gatsby-mansion-insp_n_832954.html

"Good job, old sport!"

Ok, so the title was based on the last phrase Gatsby says on the first level in the little NES video game. (Hint!: while wearing a golden fedora, hold attack to make your hat fly farther!)

Now, Queer theory, which I shall refer to as "Queory" sniffs out a plethora of situations in The Great Gatsby. personally the one situation that caught me off guard was the Jordan and Nick's last conversation. Nick has been pointed out as possibly being attracted to other men, and Jordan has been described in more masculine terms than all the male characters combined (specifically "Jaunty"). And what really puts a nail in perfectly-heterosexual-novel-of-the-century-award's coffin, is in fact the "Bad driver conversation" which at first sounds a bit like a bonding conversation, turns out to be an alleged "coming out" for Nick and Jordan's Bisexuality. I was blown away at around midnight by this concept. Now, for Queory in general, I believe the topic does generally hold ground. I've read short stories and heard about and watched clips and films, that have had these homosexual signs, and now I actually have some phrases to point them out with.
On a side note however,
Gatsby choice of colors is a bit of a stretch for finding Qeory themes. Even though pink and lavender are generally effeminate colors, the whole concept of "Rainbow Flag" and the like happened 50 years after the book was publish.
AND Lois Tyson has many legit theories, but it's such a shame she's a man-hating monster with a troubled past, which she regularly drags into her book.

Question time, OK... Do you think Nick new the entire time that he was bisexual? or do you think he discovered this as the story went, tried to combat it with a fling with Jordan, and then found he couldn't hide it?
Kinda made that a binary question, but I've been trapped inside my house with very sick people for over four days, so I'm a little weird.

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?