New Criticism [Tim]

Lois Tyson's New Critical interpretation of Gatsby shows me how a deeper understanding of a text can be achieved through a close analysis of the text itself, without consideration of the historical or biographical context. By inspecting the imagery of the text, Tyson is able to come to the conclusion that :"It is the universal theme of unfulfilled longing, so powerfully carried by the novels' magnificent imagery that has made The Great Gatsby the enduring masterpiece that it is." I particularly liked how she observed the tension between the "idyllic..plenitude, fulfillment, pleasure, and harmony" that surrounds the rich, and the "vulgar" way in which they act. The tension, according to Tyson, mirrors the tension between "[L]ife the way we want it to be, ...[and] life he way it isn't". Additionally, I liked how Tyson notes how ambiguity adds to the overall theme of longing, remarking on Nick’s comment on the city as full of “wild promise of all the mystery and beauty in the world”. We don’t really know what about the city is wild, mysterious, and beautiful, but we do know that Nick longs for it. This new way of reading, is by far the hardest for me to wrap my head around. The fact that the text has “one true meaning” that is carried by the “form of the text” baffles me. How can profound meaning be found in the mechanics of literature? How can one text mean only one thing? How can we disregard the reader, author, and context of the text so easily?

New Criticism (Josh)

The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald is a novel I feel can be looked at through a New Criticism lens and still have the authors original intentions be shown. Fitzgerald had such a focus on making each section of the story perfect, revising time after time again to make sure every aspect, whether structural or not, was perfect and flowed just as he intended. The Great Gatsby is a unique example though, it is truly a rare piece of American literature and as we have seen through out our exploration of the novel, viewing the book through different lenses, criticisms can be broadly applied to the text and almost always have some material to work with, which is impressive when the The Great Gatsby's relatively short 180 pages is taken into consideration.

Even when looking at texts that work well with New Criticism I cannot agree with the ideals behind New Criticism, simply ignoring other aspects of a text and suggesting that its main meaning should be determined through its structure and nots its content or context is ridiculous. Other criticisms such as Feminist for Marxist don't simply ignore parts of a text, they try to adapt those aspects of the text into something that can be seen as an argument for their cause. New criticism can be an important lens to use in combination with others to try to understand the complete meaning of a text but when used on its own I feel a complete understanding is impossible to gain.

Late Feminist Post (joey)

After looking at The Great Gatsby through a feminist lens, my view has changed only in small ways. I had noticed lots of the topics discussed in this essay before reading it, and i agree with some statements made by lois tyson like how she points out that the great Gatsby takes place during a time where women's behavior was starting to change and how that is a pivotal point about the book. "Women could now be seen smoking and drinking (despite prohibition,) often in the company of men and with out chaperones." Lois used the term "New women" to describe the change in women's behavior during this time. I think that Jordan is a good example of a new women, because she is the one chasing after Nick and she is always seen smoking and greatly enjoys Gatsby's parties. The fact that there are women going through this change and becoming more outgoing and aceptable adds to the romance aspect of the novel, well actually i think the romance aspect of the novel really shows the changes the women are going through because it describes the struggles with men and women trying to break free and become their own people by taking control of their own lives. I cant really see the example of women becoming "new women" in any other aspect of the book, can you? Other then partying, smoking, drinking and relationships?

Deja Vu? (Milo)

Upon reading the "New Critical" method i just had to think to myself, "Wait...Wha?"
We've already gone over the idea of close reading, and pulling apart texts from Gatsby. Close reading, for me at least, is actually one of the cleaner, purer ways of analyzing readings, why? because we're just reading the words more deeply, as opposed to make accusations about the Author's secret love for proletariat uprisings while they kept their wives in the kitchen. it's really bare-boned, and easy to swallow. The best part of criticizing some parts of Gatsby over again, is that you notice subtle hints about scenes or conversations, (especially repetition of certain weird words) that didn't change the story's meaning, but it did make it deeper than before.

New Critism, Sarah

"The 'Deathless Song' of longing: A New Critical Reading of The Great Gatsby", the aspect that caught my attention was when Tyson analysed the green light at the end of Daisy's dock. Although I agree that it is a symbol of unfulfilled longing, I do not agree with Tyson's analysis of the light and its symbolism. Green throughout the novel is consistently associated with money. I believe that rather than Daisy being Gatsby;s unfulfilled longing, i is what Daisy represents, which is of course old money, that Gatsby truly longs for. The green light at the end of the dock represents old money which Gatsby could only obtain by marrying Daisy; his unfulfilled longing. By the end "[Daisy] came to the window and stood there for a minute and then turned out the light." This shows that Gatsby will never be old money, and will therefore continue longing for Daisy or old money. My question is this theory does not fit into Tyson's other observations, so how does this interpretation fit into her analysis of The Great Gatsby?

Joey.

New criticism is a joke. If there is actually a criticism that my 7 year old neighbor can comment on things in the same way a new critic would, then i dont think it should be worth teaching at a high school level. In regards to hearing about new criticism in The Great Gatsby, how could looking at the words and their "tension" change the way I look at a story? A story is a story and you can read the words and interpret them any way you want, and the story will follow the storyline the way you want it not the way other people want it. Another problem with new criticism is the fact that when you're looking at such a shallow base information such as the text, you can miss the meaning of the novel or become confused in the storyline and in my eyes not enjoy the book you're reading. New criticism might have some potential if combined with other criticisms. In fact it could be combined with just about any other form of criticism and thus create a truly "new" criticism. But what would be the best criticism to combine new criticism with? Would some be better then others? How would a combination take criticizing to a whole new level?

Old Criticism (Willie)

Not to beat a dead horse and echo everyone else's sentiments, but New Criticism has not changed my view on The Great Gatsby at all. I don't even see at as a lens. It is essentially looking at the text without one and taking everything in its own context as opposed to that of its historical period. This is the way I looked at Gatsby upon my initial readings. Nothing has changed. That being said, I like this way of picking apart a text. However, I would get rid of the objectivity of it that its practitioners believe in and acknowledge that we will all see different things and that those different things are simply our way of reflecting ourselves into whatever it is that we are reading. For this reason, I think it is utterly vacuous to attempt to reach some sort of conclusion that is objective. The greatest thing about art is that it is all subjective. John sees things in Jane Eyre that Jill does not, and vice versa. If these seemingly elitist critics would acknowledge it, it might be a bit more fun. Granted they probably do, but whatever; I'm ignorant.