The Great Gatsby The Great Gatsby discussion


6492 views
Is Nick Carraway gay?

Comments (showing 1-50 of 2,141) (2141 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 42 43

Aurora I typed "is nick carraway " into Google, and the first option to come up was "is nick carraway gay?" I want to know what people's opinions of this theory are. I don't really see any indication of Nick being homosexual, but I'd like to know what other people think.


Cynthia I never read it that way... I wonder if it was just autocorrect on the spelling?

One of the reasons I saw him as heterosexual is that he seemed to have been intimate with Jordan. He seemed to want to have a sexual connection with her even if he didn't want to marry her. That seems like a heterosexual behavior. Anything's possible... and part of what we get out of a book is what we bring to it, but I saw Nick as being attracted to women, but not wanting to be tied down or to make a commitment until after he reached a more mature state of mind and became accountable near the end.


David There is that scene where he is obsessed with the elevator lever. phallic symbol, much? He is also divorced without really explaining it, and he is pretty obsessed with Gatsby.

But really there is no way to say for sure.


Aurora Thanks for your opinions. I'd read about the scene in the elevator, and someone said the exact same thing.

It pretty much seems like it's open to the reader's interpretation.


Charles Bechtel Come on, he's invited to someday come up for lunch (euphemism still in use today) then takes an elevator ride with the pale Mr. McKee who suggestively fondles a handle, then denies doing it, and Nick is in his underwear while McKee ticks off the titles of his engravings... Drives me nuts that things have to be spelled out in CAPS for some people to see a scene. If he's not gay, he's highly suggestible (another euphemism from the old days.) The scene isn't open to a reader's interpretation, it's sublimely prepared for a reader's interpolation.


Sonja I think he's either gay or bi. Haven't read the book in two years so can't say if I think for sure he's one or the other; would have to read it again. I think he's gay cuz he iS obsessed with Gatsby plus the elevator scene and what happens after...

The reason I think he could be bi is that he's heavily attracted to Jordon. And he was married before the start of the book.


message 7: by [deleted user] (new)

I typed "is nick carraway" and I found other things. When I read it, I didn't find any such thing that points he is gay. But he could be, he ditched Jordan Baker.


Charles Bechtel People, read the end of Chapter Two. Never mind, I'll reprint it here:

Then Mr. McKee turned and continued on out the door. Taking my hat from the chandelier I followed.
"Come to lunch some day," he suggested, as we groaned down in the elevator.
"Where?"
"Anywhere."
"Keep your hands off the lever," snapped the elevator boy.
"I beg your pardon," said Mr. McKee with dignity, "I didn't know I was touching it."
"All right," I agreed, "I'll be glad to."
. . . I was standing beside his bed and he was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear, with a great portfolio in his hands.
"Beauty and the Beast . . . Loneliness . . . Old Grocery Horse . . .Brook'n Bridge . . . ."
Then I was lying half asleep in the cold lower level of the Pennsylvania Station, staring at the morning "Tribune" and waiting for the four o'clock train.

If this scene doesn't spell it out for anyone in Black and White...


Philip Lee He goes cold on Jordan after he sees her cheating at golf. He may not be 100% reliable as a narrator, but he is a basically honest character.

Then again, I don't think the novel is sufficiently about Nick for the reader to worry to much about him, or his sexual orientation. There's just him standing there at the end, musing on the past and the future of New York, when I guess he's supposed to be playing the role of Everyman.

As to his being gay, didn't someone say everybody was?


message 10: by Charles (last edited Dec 04, 2012 01:40PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Charles Bechtel Having taught this book for twenty years I feel I have some handle on this. Nick's sexual persuasion is confused, purposely, as is his reliability as a witness. The two go hand in hand. He neither wants to have sex with Gatsby or with any of the women. What he wants is to be attended to, liked, even considered co-equal, which is the main theme of the book, and Gatsby's great failure. Gatsby's disqualified from equality by birth, but in the New America, he believes that equality can be attained through money, gotten however necessary. Unquestionably Nick had sex with McKee, but it's dry, unsentimental, nothing like the sex Gatsby wants to have with Daisy, or Tom with his mistress. Nick's "gayness" is a foil for Gatsby and the crowd. It is what blocks him from inclusion among the people with whom he shares a common birthright, and from the ultra hetero Jay Gatsby. Had Nick attempted with either Jay or Jordan what he did with the stranger McKee, they'd have cut his balls off. And he knows it. This impotence of Nick's emotional quotient is completely the opposite of Jay's passion, yet somehow weirdly similar to his cousin Daisy's. It matters to the reader by not mattering to the characters.


message 11: by Cagne (last edited Dec 04, 2012 01:52PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Cagne Philip wrote: "As to his being gay, didn't someone say everybody was? "

Damn i wanted to say that too.

Charles wrote: "If this scene doesn't spell it out for anyone in Black and White..."

I remember being confused about that passage and read somewhere it was a druken recap of how he put a more drunk person to bed, it didn't ring a gay bell for me.


message 12: by Sree (new) - rated it 5 stars

Sree I re-read the scene just now, but I can't say I see homosexuality here. It just looks like Carraway and McKee are both riotously drunk, but Carraway being the more sober of the two, puts McKee to bed at home and then proceeds to go home. He falls asleep on a platform on the lower level of Penn Station and wakes up at 4 a.m.

The whole thing seems very straightforward, and in a way, reading casual gay sex is as much a twenty-first century interpolation into the story as would be reading the whole novel as social commentary about financial irresponsibility leading to a market crash. I don't think the contemporary readers or Fitzgerald himself would have thought of sexual interaction between the two men when the scene came up — it would just be out of the blue for them.


Matthew Williams Charles wrote: "People, read the end of Chapter Two. Never mind, I'll reprint it here:

Then Mr. McKee turned and continued on out the door. Taking my hat from the chandelier I followed.
"Come to lunch some day,..."


I hope your being facetious here, because that's a lot of innuendo and quite the assumption.


Norman If you want further evidence to suggest that Nick had a gay time with McKee, read the whole of Ch. 2 again. Be on the lookout for Nick's impression of McKee, his wife, and don't miss the very intimate action of wiping the bit of lather off the sleeping McKee's face. 1920's or not, for a male to do that to another male is...let's just say strongly suggestive of homosexual tendencies.


Iphis OH MY GOD. My enjoyment of The Great Gatsby just got multiplied by like a million.

So rereading it now


Iphis Not to mention the fact that Jordan, Nick's love interest (who he winds up not going for btw), is described as masculine (and has a name also used for men)...


message 17: by G.S. (new) - rated it 4 stars

G.S. Johnston Cynthia wrote: "I never read it that way... I wonder if it was just autocorrect on the spelling?

One of the reasons I saw him as heterosexual is that he seemed to have been intimate with Jordan. He seemed to want..."


But Jordan (a male-ish name) is a female pro golf player... and most likely to be a lesbian. Aren't Nick and Jordan covering one another? And Nick is in love with Gatsby.


message 18: by Iphis (last edited Dec 05, 2012 01:09AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Iphis But Jordan (a male-ish name) is a female pro golf player... and most likely to be a lesbian. Aren't Nick and Jordan covering one another? And Nick is in love with Gatsby.

Maybe. I really like that idea! But what evidence is there of Jordan being a lesbian? I'd have to re-read the book, I think. It seems unfair to assume she's a lesbian just because she's a successful female athlete and portrayed as being more assertive than most women.


message 19: by G.S. (new) - rated it 4 stars

G.S. Johnston Erica wrote: "But Jordan (a male-ish name) is a female pro golf player... and most likely to be a lesbian. Aren't Nick and Jordan covering one another? And Nick is in love with Gatsby.

Maybe. I really like tha..."


I didn't mean to imply that but it is a possibility - I just think they are covering one another - there is a very explicit and yet odd reference to Nick being gay that nobody else seems to pick up on. I'll find my copy and find the reference tonight. I wrote a little thing about the upcoming film http://gsjohnston.com/the-baz-gatsby/


message 20: by G.S. (new) - rated it 4 stars

G.S. Johnston Erica wrote: "But Jordan (a male-ish name) is a female pro golf player... and most likely to be a lesbian. Aren't Nick and Jordan covering one another? And Nick is in love with Gatsby.

Maybe. I really like tha..."


Someone else has it above here

. . . I was standing beside his bed and he was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear, with a great portfolio in his hands.

I don't think straight men stand beside a bed with an almost naked man and a huge portfolio


Norman Later in the book, shortly after the climactic hotel scene, Nick recalls that it is his birthday that day. He muses on being one year older, including a statement (I can't remember the exact quote) that mentions a decreasing number of single men to know. The wording is suitably ambiguous but together with the evidence from Ch. 2, his dubious relationship with Jordan (who is a rather masculine female if you think about it), and his obsession with Gatsby (could he be in love with Jay and not want to acknowledge it even to himself?), one begins to wonder if the novel couldn't be renamed "The Gay Gatsby."


message 22: by Shae (new) - rated it 3 stars

Shae Charles wrote: "People, read the end of Chapter Two. Never mind, I'll reprint it here:

Then Mr. McKee turned and continued on out the door. Taking my hat from the chandelier I followed.
"Come to lunch some day,..."

Agree 100%. This was more than likely a society where homosexuality was frowned upon. Look at Tom Buchanan for crying out loud. He seems to "overcompensate" with sleeping around just to come across as a "man". Especially seeing as Nick is very detailed and perceptive, but this passage has gaps.


M. Joseph Murphy Charles wrote: "People, read the end of Chapter Two. Never mind, I'll reprint it here:

Then Mr. McKee turned and continued on out the door. Taking my hat from the chandelier I followed.
"Come to lunch some day,..."


Loves this. "great portfolio in his hands."


message 24: by John (new) - rated it 2 stars

John Who cares?


Aleksandar Trapara He seemed rather asexual to me. However, it did occur to me that he might be gay. His depictions of Tom and Jay Gatsby are utterly womanish at times, the way he thinks also.


Philip Lee OK, those who have pushed for the outing of Nick have turned up some decidedly Freudian slips.

So may I posit this slightly obtuse thought?

Given that Nick is Fitzgerald's narrative voice in TGG, perhaps we should be considering to what extent he - subconsciously or not - reveals hidden/secret aspects of the author's sexuality?


message 27: by Iphis (last edited Dec 05, 2012 04:08PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Iphis Philip wrote: "OK, those who have pushed for the outing of Nick have turned up some decidedly Freudian slips.

So may I posit this slightly obtuse thought?

Given that Nick is Fitzgerald's narrative voice in TGG,..."


It's hard to say. It's often too much of a jump to assume things about the author based on the protagonist in their novel. Fitzgerald might have knowingly made Nick gay and implied it on purpose. Then again, Fitzgerald's relationship with Hemingway was PRETTY gay, or at the very least, homoerotic.


Iphis G.S. wrote: "Erica wrote: "But Jordan (a male-ish name) is a female pro golf player... and most likely to be a lesbian. Aren't Nick and Jordan covering one another? And Nick is in love with Gatsby.

Maybe. I r..."


I'm not questioning the homosexual implications in Nick's portrayal. I was questioning the notion that Jordan was a lesbian.


Jools I have read this book so many times over the years and i have never thought Nick was Gay or Bi.
In the druken recap I also read it as one slightly less drunk person making sure another gets home and into bed before leaving.


Norman Well...McKee's wife (described by Nick as "shrill, languid, handsome, and horrible) could have made sure her hubby (described by Nick as "a pale feminine man") got home and into bed. And here are Nick's musings on turning 30: "Thirty--the promise of a decade of loneliness, a thinning list of single men to know, a thinning briefcase of enthusiasm, thinning hair." The next few lines mention "the reassuring pressure of [Jordan's] hand" in his, but it is not clear what exactly he is being reassured about. Could it be that her presence (he knows she is a cheat at golf but he forgives her for it) reminds him of the possibility of getting away with certain improprieties?

So is Nick gay? Is he straight? All I suggest is that there is evidence of both...and so, he is bisexual, "half in love" with Jordan but not adverse to serious infatuation with Gatsby or a quickie with McKee.

I would also like to counter Philip's claim that the novel is not "sufficiently about Nick." He may not be the title character, but this novel is more about Nick than it is about anyone else.


message 31: by Matthew (last edited Dec 05, 2012 09:58PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Matthew Williams It seems like this forum has gone from suggesting whether Nick is gay to whether or not Fitzgerald is. I see nothing but supposition and innuendo based on some very creative readings of the text, not to mention a lot of assumptions.

This reminds me of amateur literary critics who said Shakespeare was gay. There, as in here, there was an awful lot of hearsay and conjecture, but no evidence to suggest that. And always the defense was made that if you didn't buy into the theory, you must be a homophobe. I found that particularly hypocritical since the people arguing he was gay were the one's making such a big deal out of the issue.

Why is it necessary to prove an author's gay, or that their characters are gay, when there's no overt indication to that effect? Why debate it at all, unless there's some element of scandal and shock involved?


Annette Thank you Matthew. I don't think Nick's sexual orientation changes anything about this great novel. Fitzgerald agonized enough over writing this book!


message 33: by G.S. (new) - rated it 4 stars

G.S. Johnston Ulitamely literature is about debate. I think it would be wrong to suggest an author as great as Fitzgerald would stitch himself into one reading of Nick - he did want an author should do and problematise. If you read the book and think - I wonder if Nick was gay - and then see how the book unfolds, that's an interesting view point. If you read the book and think - Nick wants to be President or something - that is also interesting. ANd remember that when this was written, things had to be coded. Fitzgerald couldn't be overt or it just wasn't going to get published. And all the debate wouldn't be going on. It's something I think we miss out on in modernity that everything is so up front and loud there is little mystery or debate.


Iphis G.S. wrote: "Ulitamely literature is about debate. I think it would be wrong to suggest an author as great as Fitzgerald would stitch himself into one reading of Nick - he did want an author should do and probl..."

But when you explore an interpretation, you should commit yourself to an interpretation and find reasonable evidence to support it. Nick wanting to be president is a farfetched and unreasonable interpretation, it also isn't one that lends much to the text. But Nick being gay would change a lot about the text. An astute poster on here offered an interesting read of Nick being sexually confused and his homoerotic tryst being an expression of a greater confusion on his character's part. A read should be interesting, supportable, and lend itself to expanding the work or better understanding it. It's intellectually lazy to just say: "literature's only about debate and anything goes."


message 35: by Iphis (last edited Dec 06, 2012 01:00AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Iphis John wrote: "Who cares?"

Annette wrote: "Thank you Matthew. I don't think Nick's sexual orientation changes anything about this great novel. Fitzgerald agonized enough over writing this book!"

Gotta love straight people who want erase queerness from everything. Lord forbid there are gay people in great literature. Why should that matter? After all, it's not like gay people struggle to find representation in the media and the arts.

If you guys don't care, guess what: you can kindly leave this thread, because obviously, we are people who do care. So if you don't want to debate or contribute or you think the whole discussion is
irrelevant, you can go away.

Also to Annette: "he agonized enough" huh? Yep, bet Fitzgerald is rolling over in his grave as we speak thanks to the added aggravation of the implication of a gay character in his book. THE HORROR


message 36: by G.S. (new) - rated it 4 stars

G.S. Johnston Erica wrote: "G.S. wrote: "Ulitamely literature is about debate. I think it would be wrong to suggest an author as great as Fitzgerald would stitch himself into one reading of Nick - he did want an author should..."

I agree totally - I was using the "president" example to just illustrate that people can do that but, as you say, they have to find textual support and purpose for such a position. THe fact that Nick's sexuality isn't straight-up straightness only adds so much more to the text. And as I said, Fitzgerald is delightfully non-commital which is piquant and the reason one reads. Have you read Reflection in a Golden Eye - McCallum? - Wow. It amazingly more up front than Gatsby but still subtle


message 37: by Matthew (last edited Dec 06, 2012 10:51AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Matthew Williams Erica wrote: "John wrote: "Who cares?"

Annette wrote: "Thank you Matthew. I don't think Nick's sexual orientation changes anything about this great novel. Fitzgerald agonized enough over writing this book!"

Go..."


That's quite the accusation. Who's trying to erase anything? This entire debate, like the case I mentioned about Shakespeare, is about projecting an idea onto the person and the text, not acknowledging something that we know to be there. And considering the lack of evidence and the assumptions being made here, I don't see how that's helpful to gay rights and tolerance.

If you care and want to acknowledge gay artists, that's great. But how about we acknowledge actual gay artists and historic greats? People like Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, Seigfried Sasoon, Wilfrid Owen, Thompson Highway, or Alan Turning. These were/are great writers, thinkers and philosophers; and what's more, their sexual orientation is a well known fact. How they struggled to hide it or be accepted is part of what their stories so inspiring and tragic, and it is they who are deserving of attention.

If you look around here, I don't think you're going to find people like you much, people who want to learn the truth and give credit where it's due. In my opinion, there are just a lot of other straight people who, at best, are making speculations because it seems like the thing to do these days. At worst, it's people being gossipy and thinking this is somehow scandalous and controversial, which is just an insult.


message 38: by Matthew (last edited Dec 06, 2012 11:04AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Matthew Williams Erica wrote: "John wrote: "Who cares?"

Annette wrote: "Thank you Matthew. I don't think Nick's sexual orientation changes anything about this great novel. Fitzgerald agonized enough over writing this book!"

Go..."


Also, why do you just assume we are straight people or that what we're saying is motivated by a desire to censor? Don't you think it's possible that people could be motivated by a genuine concern, that we think that qualifying someone as a "gay author" does then little service? Or are you in the habit of thinking that people who don't agree with you are automatically wrong and bigoted?

Also, can't speak for John and Annette here, but I have no intention of leaving. I'll speak my opinion and invite people to disagree, just as I hope they'd do for me. I for one won't drum anyone out simply because we don't see eye to eye.


Philip Lee When Fitzgerald chose to deal with homosexuality, as he did in Tender Is The Night, he wrote an implicit rather than explicit scene. Also, it's Dick Diver (whose point of view we are in) who deals with the repercussions there, in a rough equivalent of Nick putting McKee to bed. Both Dick and Nick, at that stage, are picking up the pieces.

I still don't think there's enough evidence in TGG to show Fitzgerald had meant most contemporary readers to think Nick Carraway was gay. Many modern readers wouldn't give it a second thought if he had. Exactly how we read the text today, as some friends have said above, may add a new frisson of excitement.

But the question this thread has brought up for me is whether he deliberately left clues for readers in-the-know, or unconsciously?

Fitzgerald was a binge drinker who many times must have experienced the situation Nick was in with McKee. In those binges, which often went on for days, did he ever cross the barrier between camp behaviour and full-blown sex? Did he make a drunken play for Hemingway which the biographers have never uncovered? Or was there some snide remark about haircuts and cross-dressing?


message 40: by Matthew (last edited Dec 07, 2012 12:53AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Matthew Williams Philip wrote: "When Fitzgerald chose to deal with homosexuality, as he did in Tender Is The Night, he wrote an implicit rather than explicit scene. Also, it's Dick Diver (whose point of view we are in) who deals ..."

Philip, I would die a happy man if yours was the last word on the subject. Not only have you encapsulated Fitzgerald's style and personality quite brilliantly, you've also done some comparative analysis, which is precisely what was needed here. When one considers all the target passages that are used as proof, the counter-point is clear, Nick Carraway was blitzed and the descriptions were most likely alluding to his drunken stupor.

Ultimately, I agree wholeheartedly that there is not a case here for the simple reason that there is not a solid enough foundation to suggest that. And, seeing as how the issue of homosexuality is not something readers today will shy away from (at least in this group), I think it's fair to say we've arrived at that conclusion without bias.


message 41: by Jon (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jon Sindell I'll bypass the larger question, whether Nick was gay, to offer a firm opinion that he had a sexual tryst with the drunken Mr. McKee. See Charles in message 8, above, for the transcript. I think the ellipse ... "I was standing beside his bed and he was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear"
indicates how far Fitzgerald could go in the America of 1925. The sex was offstage.

I think Midwestern boy Nick was drunk and curious during his first summer in the big city and that's about as far as it goes.


Matthew Williams Jon wrote: "I'll bypass the larger question, whether Nick was gay, to offer a firm opinion that he had a sexual tryst with the drunken Mr. McKee. See Charles in message 8, above, for the transcript. I think th..."

Again, big assumption being made here. Is it just because there's a bed involved and a man's in his underwear that leads people to conclude that gay sex happened? And isn't it possible that we're projecting a set of millennial values on the text here, rather than inferring what would be said in a 1920's context?


message 43: by Jon (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jon Sindell Matthew wrote: "Jon wrote: "I'll bypass the larger question, whether Nick was gay, to offer a firm opinion that he had a sexual tryst with the drunken Mr. McKee. See Charles in message 8, above, for the transcript..."

Hello Matthew. It's an educated guess, and I think it's a reasonable one. I'm not interested enough to research the point, but maybe someone more motivated than me could find out whether the author ever commented on the scene.


message 44: by Matthew (last edited Dec 11, 2012 10:10PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Matthew Williams Jon wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Jon wrote: "I'll bypass the larger question, whether Nick was gay, to offer a firm opinion that he had a sexual tryst with the drunken Mr. McKee. See Charles in message 8, above, fo..."

I don't how educated it is. It's based on a few lines of text taken completely out of context. And why would Fitzgerald, who's using this book to comment on his life amongst the rich, use this one point to insert homoerotic content?


message 45: by Jon (last edited Dec 11, 2012 11:52PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jon Sindell Matthew wrote: "Jon wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Jon wrote: "I'll bypass the larger question, whether Nick was gay, to offer a firm opinion that he had a sexual tryst with the drunken Mr. McKee. See Charles in message ..."

Why wouldn't he? This is partly the story of a young Midwestern man's observations of the wild behavior of New Yorkers, and this brief scene is a small part of a big tapestry. From the earliest days, young people have experimented with new ideas and new behaviors in New York City. Nick himself witnesses all sorts of people and behaviors at Gatsby's parties and in NYC which are new to him, and in the course of the summer, he is fascinated, appalled, and ultimately disenchanted with what he sees. It's not terribly unusual for a young heterosexual man to have a single homoerotic encounter—"for philosophy," as it's sometimes said. It's perfectly plausible that Nick fell in that category, and again, the circumstantial and narrative evidence is very suggestive of a tryst—a point on which some participants in this thread strongly agree.

As for me, it's an exceptionally small part of my second favorite book. Whether Nick did or did not sleep with McKeen can have no possible effect on my appreciation of this masterpiece. I hope that is the case with you, as you clearly admire the book. Anyway, we clearly won't convince each other on this point, so I'll move on.


message 46: by Kati (new) - rated it 5 stars

Kati I'm just wondering why this question even came up. Why would Nick have been with Jordan if he was gay??? And he is only obsessed with Gatsby because, although he is everything that Nick hates in a person, Gatsby becomes more and more interesting to Nick as the story progresses. Nick gets to see the real man behind all the glamour and riches. He sees that Gatsby is more than a superficial someone that only cares about partying and drinking and having a good time. Gatsby reveals himslef to be a lonely man thwarted in love with someone that he can never have. For if he does have Daisy, he cannot have all the luxuries he has now, which is a complete deal-breaker for Daisy (because she only married Tom for his money). And if Gatsby has the luxuries, he cannot have Daisy. He becomes this tragic love story, and this causes Nick to take particular interest in him.

In conclusion, I have to say that it is a ridiculous notion to even think that Nick is gay. He was intimate with Jordan at times in the book and his "obsession" with Gatsby is justified.


message 47: by Erin (new) - rated it 5 stars

Erin These days a lot of modern interpretations on older books portray characters as gay. However, I didn't really read him as gay but it al depends on how you looked at it really


Matthew Williams Jon wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Jon wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Jon wrote: "I'll bypass the larger question, whether Nick was gay, to offer a firm opinion that he had a sexual tryst with the drunken Mr. McKee. See Cha..."

And what is the circumstantial and narrative evidence, aside from the lines of text already mentioned? I would very much like to know if there is anything in Fitzgerald's own experience that would have led him to write this in with the intent of alluding to a gay experience. As it's already been argued, the scene is one of drunkedness and is conveyed in a vague and vivid way to suggest intoxication.

Beyond that, I don't see any basis for anything other than supposition. I could care less if Nick DID sleep with the guy, I just don't see why it's even being brought up when there's really nothing to suggest that. It sounds more like an attempt to inject some controversy into the book by suggesting their was something else going on there that was taboo by current standards.


message 49: by Jon (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jon Sindell Matthew wrote: "Jon wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Jon wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Jon wrote: "I'll bypass the larger question, whether Nick was gay, to offer a firm opinion that he had a sexual tryst with the drunken Mr. Mc..."

Dear sir, as I said, neither of us is going to convince the other. As to why it's brought up, I innocently wandered into a discussion of my second favorite book. In the absence of any other topic of discussion, I joined this one. I think it's likely that Nick slept with McKee, and the reasons for thinking so are on the page. You disagree. Fantastic! Enjoy the book and all of your reading. Goodbye.


Matthew Williams Jon wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Jon wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Jon wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Jon wrote: "I'll bypass the larger question, whether Nick was gay, to offer a firm opinion that he had a sexual tryst with th..."

Yes, but you've also alluded to proof or evidence to this effect. And frankly, that's what caught my interest since I'm not averse to the idea, just that I don't think there is proof of that. If we're just matching wits then sure, agree to disagree.

However, I think I'm far from done here, especially where people who think I and others who disagree are homophobes or want to erase gay people from literature. What's up with that?


« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 42 43
back to top

all discussions on this book | post a new topic


Books mentioned in this topic

The Great Gatsby (other topics)
Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide (other topics)
Making Cocoa for Kingsley Amis (other topics)
Travesties (other topics)
Trimalchio: An Early Version of The Great Gatsby (other topics)
More...

Authors mentioned in this topic

Lois Tyson (other topics)