Jazz was created by whites???

This reading was surprising to the say the least, especially in the conclusions she formed. For one, she (Tyson) says "the novel gives the credit for jazz symbolically to whites." (Tyson 405) I thought that this was slightly misleading, and I feel that she is saying only blacks can create jazz, and that statement is racist in and of itself. Another note I agree with slightly more is the absence of Harlem in The Great Gatsby, as noted on page 404 of CTT. It does seem peculiar that Harlem is not mentioned, but there are multiple ways into Manhattan, and may be justified. The lack of mention of the Jazz clubs is suspicious, however.

I don't feel that it changes my reading too much, but more raises my attention to this lack of scenery. The lack of Harlem in The Great Gatsby is far too suspicious to warrant ignore it and should be brought to light. The bit on the giving of jazz to whites was a bit far fetched, and could be omitted.

A question: Do you think the bit on the giving of jazz to whites was well concluded? Could it have been omitted? should it have been expanded on?

-Christian

Justine: The Jazz Age... Without Harlem

The Harlem Renaissance was a vital part of the 1920s. Considering that Fitzgerald coined the term "Jazz Age," it is a little ridiculous that Harlem was never mentioned in Gatsby. And yes, some of the characters are racist. However, all agreement with Tyson's essay stops there.

First, Tyson spends 5 pages discussing Fitzergerlad's "strong evocation of a sense of place" (396). However, apparently his evocation was not strong enough. Without Harlem, Fitzgerald forgot an essential part of 1920s New York City, therefore making the "sense of place" incomplete. But how incomplete? Just because Harlem was crucial during the same era in which the novel occurs does not mean that Harlem would have added to the storyline. Frankly, the omission does not seem as serious as Tyson describes it.

Second, Tyson's essay includes a 3 page description of Harlem itself. It is well known that "Harlem's nightclubs... offered such jazz greats as Eubie Blake, Fats Waller, Louis Armstrong, Bessie Smith, Duke Ellington, and Cab Calloway [who all] attracted white people from all over the city and beyond" (402). The term "Harlem Renaissance" exists because it was a cultural movement that affected music and written works everywhere. This entire section could have been either edited or cut all together. The essay would not have suffered without it. We are learning about literary criticism, not the history of Harlem. We read these essays to learn how to use criticisms.

And third, Tyson yet again fails to follow through with her concept of "The Death of the Author." Let's face it: Fitzgerald was a racist. He believed the United States should "raise the bars of immigration... and permit only Scandinavians, Teutons, Anglo-Saxons and Celts to enter" (408). However, it is not possible to prove author intent from text alone, therefore this argument is unrelated to the essay.

We were told this essay was complex, and that Tyson knew what she was doing. Be that as it may, I cannot agree. In this essay, Tyson used textual evidence from Gatsby in conjunction to African American criticism on only 3 pages of this essay. Considering the essay is 13 pages long, that number is too few. Yes, she used textual examples to show the "sense of place," but that did not relate to using the criticism itself. This essay disappointed me. It did not give any new insights on the novel, or change my reading of Gatsby.

Great Gatsby Comics

http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=259

Thought these might be appreciated. Enjoy.

-Nate

Queer Theory (Nate)

Quite honestly, I found most of the assertions made in this essay quite far-fetched. Perhaps it is because my all around skepticism of queer theory, but most of this seems nit-picky and frivolous, to use some big words.

Allow me to explain my reasoning. In a theory such as Marxist, it's a fact that every object gives sign-exchange value, and when patriotism is being used then it's being used. That's that. However in queer theory everything is about stretching the meaning of words or calling one thing or another a "symbol". For example, the essay reads at the top of page 344 "These two young women are a striking example of same-sex 'doubles' that function as lesbians signs; they look like, talk alike, are dressed alike, are apparently inseparable..."So why is this a lesbian sign?? Just because there's two characters who are identical doesn't mean that the author is trying to convey some queer symbol, that's quite frankly absurd.

That's not to say however that I don't believe there's anything worthy of mention in Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. Another example given on that same page is instance in which Nick is extremely drunk and suddenly finds himself "standing beside [Mr. McKee's] bed and [Mr. McKee] was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear..." There's no doubt that when this scene was written, Fitzgerald definitely knew it could at least be interpreted as evidence for Nick being gay, even if that wasn't the true intent.

All in all, this essay has not convinced me of queer theory's legitimacy. I find it all around too desperate for any symbols that it takes apart things that have nothing to do with homosexuality, often because there was clearly no intent to reference homosexuality in the text itself. Anything which does give some feel for a queer theme will already be obvious enough that this theory would be unnecessary.

"...And That's All He's Saying" (Julian)

I would like to preemptively say that, overall, I agree with Tyson's queer analysis of The Great Gatsby. Although the text is ambiguous at best, I feel that the ideas and experiences (primarily regarding Nick) could easily be related to by a homosexual individual, and help normalize the concept of a society that fully accepts non-heterosexual relationships.

That being said, I can not help but disagree with her thoughts on the section where Nick possibly sleeps with another man, Mr. McKee. Obviously, from a queer perspective, this scene is incredibly important. Although there is weight in the subtle, ambiguous hints of homosexuality all throughout the novel, this is the only scene with the possibility of real, homosexual intercourse.

For Starters, Tyson suggests that Nick is attracted to McKee, due to his awareness of the lather on McKee's face, which somehow implies "Nick's fastidious attention to McKee's grooming." (Tyson 344). I must beg to differ. While spotting some pet hair or unwashed spots could imply "fastidious attention," a spot of lather, on someone's face, is something incredibly hard to miss. In my mind, Nick's deliberate narration of his observation could more easily be seen as a recognition of wealth (lather was not common nor cheap back then), or a personal attempt at establishing superiority.

Secondly, Tyson seems to intentionally point out, "Nick's 'following him' out of the room, the lunch invitation..." (Tyson 344) What exactly is Tyson trying to prove? Do I display a homosexual attraction if I invite a male friend to lunch, or if I follow him somewhere? In this part, Tyson seems to be attempting to stretch nothing into something.

Finally, and most importantly, Tyson seems to hastily assume that "whatever occured in the interim has the status of a repressed memory," (Tyson 345) in regards to Nick's lack of recollection of the previous night. Once again, where did she get this notion from? Yes, this part is ambiguous, and gives no real clues as to the events, but that does not give her free passage to throw out wild assumptions left and right. What we do know is that Nick was under the influence of alcohol, something known to cause a temporary loss of memory when over-consumed. Did Nick get drunk, have sex with Mr. McKee, remember it, then unconsciously repress the memory, leaving the alcohol with no involvement? One in a million chance. Once again, I consider this section to be a jumble of unfounded, wild assumptions at best.

The Great Gatsby is an incredibly ambiguous lens, and theory itself is meant to take specific perspectives with the help of that ambiguity. That being said, any criticism should have some basis of provable facts. There are a myriad of statements in even the most homophobic texts that could be seen as homosexual with enough stretching, but in reality have no such value. While Tyson's reading of The Great Gatsby has, overall, excellent points and conclusions, this particularly crucial section, in my opinion, was her weakest.

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?

A view from the closet (Tim)

From Tyson's analysis of The Great Gatsby, it is hard not to miss the obvious hints of Nicks bicurious viewpoint and narrative perspective. I think it was hard for us to notice without Tyson's help because all of the gay signs are coming from the first person. That means that a well groomed, homosocial guy that is obsessed with Gatsby (himself rather flamboyant) would normally raise some flags, but because we see the story from Nicks perspective, its easier to miss. Nick's sexuality appears"almost puritanical" (Tyson, 349) in attempt to both cover his homosexuality and to lead us readers away from the conclusion that Nick was in the closet. Nick also has frequent heterosexual flings to cover for his repressed homosexual feelings.

I think Fitzgerald used transgressive sexuality to make the homosexual undertones seem less alien: If at every turn there is a sordid affair or a drunken girl flaunting her sexuality, a little guy-guy love does not make the readers uncomfortable. Had he not included the flood of sexual themes, we may not have been so willing to accept Nick as a reliable, "normal" guy. The added fact that we see the story from Nick's perspective further normalizes the idea of a non-heterocentric society.