Elin’s answer to “My teacher keeps on insisting that Jay Gatsby is black. Is he?” > Likes and Comments
17 likes · Like
Not likely that he would have made it clear for the very reasons you state.
Without wishing to be rude, that's absurd. There's no reason to make this baseless assumption. It's like randomly imagining he was transgender.
No it is not random and many credentialed professors agree. There is zero evidence for him being transgender. Educate yourself and try again.
I would say that's a pathetic argument but let's face it, there is no argument there. A couple of fallacies sure, but no actual arguments.
You're basically saying that zero evidence for him being black is proof that he is black. When I pointed out that you could apply the same, ahem, "logic", to the idea that he was transgender, you threw in a casual argumentum ad verecundiam plus an ad hominem and acted like that qualifies as some sort of valid rationalisation.
Educate yourself and try again.
Ok. 1) you are just not up to speed on the academic study behind this theory. It is proposed by a Columbia-trained PhD in Literature. If you go to OYC.com, you will see the resident Fitzgerald expert at Yale also mentions the racial elements in the novel. Maureen Corrigan the NPR book reviewer in her latest book on the novel also admits to the possibility that he is not fully white. If you want to call them ridiculous, go right ahead. In addition, there is a growing body of inquiry that is rethinking the novel and coming to this point of view. That is why the original poster's teacher probably brought it up. Google to find the many thesis papers on the subject. These people and me are not "imagining". We are basing the analysis on what all critical literary theory is based n: the text, the context and the biography of the author. I am not saying that there is zero evidence. I am saying there is a lot of evidence - way to much to write on here. You should find them and , yes, educate yourself.
2) I myself have read many many books about the novel and the writer and have reviewed primary documents that make me believe that this theory is the best one for the novel.(I wonder if you have read any of those or have just read the novel itself.) If you understand the book you know that it's central theme is about the barriers to the American dream. So having Gatsby black is not inconsistent with that theme - it expands upon it.
3) My comment was not ad hominen. It is simply clear that you are ignorant of the emerging theory and yet feel ok to declare it ridiculous. Therefore it is unhelpful to discuss it with you until you take the time to educate yourself.
4) Finally, you cannot apply the same logic to determine that he was transgender. Again, it is not logic based but an evidentiary based argument. Second, because literary analysis requires the support of the text itself there is no way to apply the same "logic" anyway and determine that he is transgender.
5) I close by saying that not every scholar agrees with the black theory. After reviewing the detailed literature and research on it you may yet not agree. But I will not let a charge of "ridiculous" stand.
This is my last word to you on this topic.
Ok, I will. They are being ridiculous. This whole 'appeal to someone else who is smart and thinks X' is stupid and doesn't wash with me, it's a well known fallacy, like I said before. Don't you understand that smart people can be wrong? And other smart people will disagree with them? It's no basis for argument and you need to stop dragging it out. You need to 'educate yourself' on fallacies, you obviously don't know what the phrase ad hominem means either.
So much evidence that you can't provide even one piece? Sure, whatever.
This is like playing chess with a pigeon, whatever I say you're going to shit on the board and strut around like you won anyway. In other words, it's a waste of my time. Good day.
You know what is weird? I had a student mention this same question that I had NEVER even thought of before. I wonder why this question has surfaced.
I think you all need to check out what Matthew Bruccoli has t say about Carlyle V. Thompson's theory.
Don’t bother. He never read it. And he says that in a much- publicied article in Salon from the early 2000s. If you do read it let me know because I have an annotated copy that identifies the failures in his “analysis”.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Janet
(new)
Jan 31, 2016 02:48AM
Not likely that he would have made it clear for the very reasons you state.
reply
|
flag
Without wishing to be rude, that's absurd. There's no reason to make this baseless assumption. It's like randomly imagining he was transgender.
No it is not random and many credentialed professors agree. There is zero evidence for him being transgender. Educate yourself and try again.
I would say that's a pathetic argument but let's face it, there is no argument there. A couple of fallacies sure, but no actual arguments. You're basically saying that zero evidence for him being black is proof that he is black. When I pointed out that you could apply the same, ahem, "logic", to the idea that he was transgender, you threw in a casual argumentum ad verecundiam plus an ad hominem and acted like that qualifies as some sort of valid rationalisation.
Educate yourself and try again.
Ok. 1) you are just not up to speed on the academic study behind this theory. It is proposed by a Columbia-trained PhD in Literature. If you go to OYC.com, you will see the resident Fitzgerald expert at Yale also mentions the racial elements in the novel. Maureen Corrigan the NPR book reviewer in her latest book on the novel also admits to the possibility that he is not fully white. If you want to call them ridiculous, go right ahead. In addition, there is a growing body of inquiry that is rethinking the novel and coming to this point of view. That is why the original poster's teacher probably brought it up. Google to find the many thesis papers on the subject. These people and me are not "imagining". We are basing the analysis on what all critical literary theory is based n: the text, the context and the biography of the author. I am not saying that there is zero evidence. I am saying there is a lot of evidence - way to much to write on here. You should find them and , yes, educate yourself. 2) I myself have read many many books about the novel and the writer and have reviewed primary documents that make me believe that this theory is the best one for the novel.(I wonder if you have read any of those or have just read the novel itself.) If you understand the book you know that it's central theme is about the barriers to the American dream. So having Gatsby black is not inconsistent with that theme - it expands upon it.
3) My comment was not ad hominen. It is simply clear that you are ignorant of the emerging theory and yet feel ok to declare it ridiculous. Therefore it is unhelpful to discuss it with you until you take the time to educate yourself.
4) Finally, you cannot apply the same logic to determine that he was transgender. Again, it is not logic based but an evidentiary based argument. Second, because literary analysis requires the support of the text itself there is no way to apply the same "logic" anyway and determine that he is transgender.
5) I close by saying that not every scholar agrees with the black theory. After reviewing the detailed literature and research on it you may yet not agree. But I will not let a charge of "ridiculous" stand.
This is my last word to you on this topic.
Ok, I will. They are being ridiculous. This whole 'appeal to someone else who is smart and thinks X' is stupid and doesn't wash with me, it's a well known fallacy, like I said before. Don't you understand that smart people can be wrong? And other smart people will disagree with them? It's no basis for argument and you need to stop dragging it out. You need to 'educate yourself' on fallacies, you obviously don't know what the phrase ad hominem means either. So much evidence that you can't provide even one piece? Sure, whatever.
This is like playing chess with a pigeon, whatever I say you're going to shit on the board and strut around like you won anyway. In other words, it's a waste of my time. Good day.
You know what is weird? I had a student mention this same question that I had NEVER even thought of before. I wonder why this question has surfaced.
I think you all need to check out what Matthew Bruccoli has t say about Carlyle V. Thompson's theory.
Don’t bother. He never read it. And he says that in a much- publicied article in Salon from the early 2000s. If you do read it let me know because I have an annotated copy that identifies the failures in his “analysis”.
