Charismatic’s answer to “Is Nick explicitly/implicitly queer?” > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
Sorry, but no. I have at least as much background studying this as you do (college literature courses) and that was 70s-80s. I read it first in high school and of course, I can see where that long ago... a high school English teacher might not have brought this up. (Though nobody asked about it, either.) But in COLLEGE? in the 80s? come on.
I have no special interest in making Nick Carraway gay or straight; I read plenty of books about or by gay folks. However, I was surprised when I first read this interpretation and I went back TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT. Since the book is in the public domain now, you can easily find it in PDF form online.
As far as Truman Capote: did you READ this "unpublished gay screenplay"? or just read ABOUT IT? and Capote was as gay as it gets; of course he had a vested interest in making the story gay. He also had to realize that nobody in 1974 would have sunk $20 million into a gay version of the story. (I'd love to read it, BTW, but I suspect it was more of an OUTLINE than a fully written screenplay.)
As far as Zelda Fitzgerald calling here husband "gay"... come on. They were a bitterly unhappy couple by the end, and she had pretty severe mental problems. The left and LGBQT folks today are far, far too interested in "rewriting history" for me to take this kind of stuff at face value (vs. someone who flat-out says they were gay, OR a gay lover who has a verifiable story about their gay love affair -- signed letters, etc.)
So that brings us to the scene you and others bring up -- ONE SCENE. You clearly haven't read it. A couple of ellipsis do not necessary mean "and the characters thusly had gay sex". You need to go back to the BEGINNING of that chapter. Nick and Tom Buchanan go into the city and Tom insists they go visit Mrytle Wilson, who he has set up in a fancy apartment. They go, and there is an uncomfortable, drunken party at which A. Nick hears a lot of gossip about Tom and Myrtle and Gatsby and B. he meets a MARRIED COUPLE, the McKee's who live directly below Myrtle. Mr. McKee is a photographer, and his wife and he endlessly discuss his photographs, resulting in Nick saying he'd like to see them. After Tom hits Myrtle in the face during an argument, the party turns into chaos and the two men flee the party, to down the elevator ONE FLOOR (directly below Myrtle) to the McKee apartment. Remember, MRS. McKee is with Myrtle, presumably cleaning up the blood and mess!!!! she is likely to return home (one floor down) ANY MINUTE. The two men view the photographs, Yes, Mr. McKee has undressed (possibly because he has blood on his clothing from the assault?). But it's not an assignation between the two men. It's a short visit to view some photos. Mr. McKee is married. He's an oddball, but nothing to suggest he is gay (unless you think every man who looks even slightly effeminate MUST BE GAY?).
That's it. At no other point does Nick refer to any men in the context of attraction or romance or sex. He doesn't say he likes Mr. McKee. He doesn't try to see him again, nor did they "pick one another up" at a bar or something. If you wanted to go have gay sex, why do it when the man's WIFE is a few feet away and headed home? Wouldn't you go somewhere private?
The only other man Nick comments on is Gatsby and Gatsby is the SUBJECT, and a mystery, and we've (as readers) already had a huge buildup as to "who and what is this mystery man!" It's not so odd to mention "he was a handsome man, a couple of years older than myself" (which is pretty much all Nick says). At no point do the men touch or flirt. Gatsby is obsessed with Daisy. Nick clearly is having a sexual love affair with Jordan Baker.
As far as the subculture: I went to college in the 70s-80s, LOTS of gays, lesbians, LGBQT groups. I worked for a dozen years in regional theatre, about the gayest employment out there. None of those things meant that I personally was gay (or lesbian).
The sad thing is that the relationship between Nick and Gatsby is based on MALE FRIENDSHIP -- not competition, not fighting over some woman they both desire, not about money or career -- about men who come to genuinely like and respect one another. And you can't bear that, without rewriting it as gay. That's the part I object to.
A gay or lesbian story about the 1920s, that was genuine and not about some contemporary 21st century revisionism? I'd be totally down with that. In fact, I am pretty sure I HAVE read such stuff at one time or another. This is not it.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
Sorry, but no. I have at least as much background studying this as you do (college literature courses) and that was 70s-80s. I read it first in high school and of course, I can see where that long ago... a high school English teacher might not have brought this up. (Though nobody asked about it, either.) But in COLLEGE? in the 80s? come on.I have no special interest in making Nick Carraway gay or straight; I read plenty of books about or by gay folks. However, I was surprised when I first read this interpretation and I went back TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT. Since the book is in the public domain now, you can easily find it in PDF form online.
As far as Truman Capote: did you READ this "unpublished gay screenplay"? or just read ABOUT IT? and Capote was as gay as it gets; of course he had a vested interest in making the story gay. He also had to realize that nobody in 1974 would have sunk $20 million into a gay version of the story. (I'd love to read it, BTW, but I suspect it was more of an OUTLINE than a fully written screenplay.)
As far as Zelda Fitzgerald calling here husband "gay"... come on. They were a bitterly unhappy couple by the end, and she had pretty severe mental problems. The left and LGBQT folks today are far, far too interested in "rewriting history" for me to take this kind of stuff at face value (vs. someone who flat-out says they were gay, OR a gay lover who has a verifiable story about their gay love affair -- signed letters, etc.)
So that brings us to the scene you and others bring up -- ONE SCENE. You clearly haven't read it. A couple of ellipsis do not necessary mean "and the characters thusly had gay sex". You need to go back to the BEGINNING of that chapter. Nick and Tom Buchanan go into the city and Tom insists they go visit Mrytle Wilson, who he has set up in a fancy apartment. They go, and there is an uncomfortable, drunken party at which A. Nick hears a lot of gossip about Tom and Myrtle and Gatsby and B. he meets a MARRIED COUPLE, the McKee's who live directly below Myrtle. Mr. McKee is a photographer, and his wife and he endlessly discuss his photographs, resulting in Nick saying he'd like to see them. After Tom hits Myrtle in the face during an argument, the party turns into chaos and the two men flee the party, to down the elevator ONE FLOOR (directly below Myrtle) to the McKee apartment. Remember, MRS. McKee is with Myrtle, presumably cleaning up the blood and mess!!!! she is likely to return home (one floor down) ANY MINUTE. The two men view the photographs, Yes, Mr. McKee has undressed (possibly because he has blood on his clothing from the assault?). But it's not an assignation between the two men. It's a short visit to view some photos. Mr. McKee is married. He's an oddball, but nothing to suggest he is gay (unless you think every man who looks even slightly effeminate MUST BE GAY?).
That's it. At no other point does Nick refer to any men in the context of attraction or romance or sex. He doesn't say he likes Mr. McKee. He doesn't try to see him again, nor did they "pick one another up" at a bar or something. If you wanted to go have gay sex, why do it when the man's WIFE is a few feet away and headed home? Wouldn't you go somewhere private?
The only other man Nick comments on is Gatsby and Gatsby is the SUBJECT, and a mystery, and we've (as readers) already had a huge buildup as to "who and what is this mystery man!" It's not so odd to mention "he was a handsome man, a couple of years older than myself" (which is pretty much all Nick says). At no point do the men touch or flirt. Gatsby is obsessed with Daisy. Nick clearly is having a sexual love affair with Jordan Baker.
As far as the subculture: I went to college in the 70s-80s, LOTS of gays, lesbians, LGBQT groups. I worked for a dozen years in regional theatre, about the gayest employment out there. None of those things meant that I personally was gay (or lesbian).
The sad thing is that the relationship between Nick and Gatsby is based on MALE FRIENDSHIP -- not competition, not fighting over some woman they both desire, not about money or career -- about men who come to genuinely like and respect one another. And you can't bear that, without rewriting it as gay. That's the part I object to.
A gay or lesbian story about the 1920s, that was genuine and not about some contemporary 21st century revisionism? I'd be totally down with that. In fact, I am pretty sure I HAVE read such stuff at one time or another. This is not it.
This is simply not the case. While the reading of a heterosexual Nick Carraway is of course absolutely valid and supported by both the text but more so by adaptions of it, the interpretation of a queer Nick is equally as supported by it, especially in the scene you refered to in which he shares a bedroom with the unclad effeminate Mr McKee, his strong aesthetic interest in male beauty and his deep affection for and connection to Gatsby.
Queer readings of The Great Gatsby also date back at least to the 70s, take for example Truman Capote’s very gay, unpublished screenplay which he wrote for Jack Clayton’s 1974 film adaptation.
And despite F. Scott Fitzgerald's mostly negative attitudes toward homosexuality he was involved in the gay and lesbian subculture of the 1920s, being familiar with homosexual socialites of that time as well as being suspected by his wife to be gay (the truth of which is admittedly disputed).