The Great Gatsby
discussion
Is Nick Carraway gay?
Matthew wrote: "Yes, I've heard people suggest Nick is "obsessed" with Gatsby, but admiration does not equal homoerotic entanglement."Awe, c'mon, Nick's tongue is practically dragging the ground for half the book. His descriptions of Gatsby are far beyond anything that can remotely be described as mere admiration. It's the only thing that CAN justify Nick's Gatsby worship. Until I re-read the book I didn't get it because that bedroom scene with McKee was so camouflaged, and I was as homo-naive as most people.
Cloaked discussions of homosexual behavior are common in the gay community. It's like a code. Someone who lived in the Castro area of San Francisco clued me in. She calls it "dropping pins." They hint at sensitive behavior rather than risk being called out and labeled. In the '20s, the risks were extreme compared to today.
Fitzgerald was very artful in cloaking the scene so that the homo-aware got it while avoiding the censors and risking widespread condemnation and loss of book sales.
The negative reactions on this thread are representative that a LOT of people would reject the book if it contained a scene of homosexual activity. If word gets around, it will be banned from some school reading lists.
Monty J wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Yes, I've heard people suggest Nick is "obsessed" with Gatsby, but admiration does not equal homoerotic entanglement."Awe, c'mon, Nick's tongue is practically dragging the ground ..."
rather than repeating your stance about nicks over the top descriptions about gatsby, why dont you provide examples? you simply saying how YOU perceived them, provides zero credible evidence.
and, furthermore if you think sexual feeling for gatsby, are the ONLY thing that can justify nicks admiration for gatsby, you are robbing the book of one of its most important themes.
Luke wrote: "rather than repeating your stance about nicks over the top descriptions about gatsby, why dont you provide examples?"Witness Nick's swooning adulation for Gatsby:
#1 "there was something gorgeous about him, some heightened sensitivity to the promises of life, as if he were related to one of those intricate machines that register earthquakes ten thousand miles away. This responsiveness had nothing to do with that flabby impressionability which is dignified under the name of the "creative temperament"--it was an extraordinary gift for hope, a romantic readiness such as I have never found in any other person and which it s not likely I shall ever find again."
#2 (p.48) "He smiled understandingly, much more than understandingly. It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life. It faced--or seemed to face--the whole external world for an instant, and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favor. It understood you just as far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you just as you would like to believe in yourself, and assured you that it had precisely the impression of you that, at your best, you hoped to convey."
#3 (p.50) "His tanned skin was drawn attractively tight on his face and his short hair looked as though it were trimmed every day. I could see nothing sinister about him. I wondered if the fact that he was not drinking helped to set him off from his guests, for it seemed to me that he grew more correct as the fraternal hilarity increased. ...but no one swooned backward on Gatsby, and no French bob touched Gatsby's shoulder, and no singing quartets were formed with Gatsby's head for one link."
#4 (p.55) "A wafer of a moon was shining over Gatsby's house, making the night fine as before, and surviving the laughter and the sound of his still glowing garden. A sudden emptiness seemed to flow now from the windows and the great doors, endowing with complete isolation the figure of the host, who stood on the porch, his hand up in a formal gesture of farewell."
Monty J wrote: "Luke wrote: "rather than repeating your stance about nicks over the top descriptions about gatsby, why dont you provide examples?"#1 there was something gorgeous about him, some heightened sensi..."
EXACTLY! nowhere in this paragraph does nick seem to have sexual feelings towards gatsby. this paragraph displays precisely what i was saying, that nick admires gatsby's capacity for hope.
i think its also important to realize, that WITHOUT nick describing gatsby in elaborate ways, we would never get any real feeling for the character of gatsby. gatsby is supposed to be somewhat mysterious, and larger than life, but at the same time, he has to be relatable, and likeable up to a point, because his death HAS to be somewhat tragic. fitzgerald as the author, had no choice but to create gatsby's aura thru nicks descriptions. but that does not mean nick is gay.
Luke wrote: "WITHOUT nick describing gatsby in elaborate ways, we would never get any real feeling for the character of gatsby."Au contraire, mon ami, it's called SHOWing instead of TELLing. It's called writing craft, which Fitzgerald has in abundance. Why doesn't he prove Gatsby is so special instead of having Nick rave about him? Why? Because it SHOWS Nick being infatuated with Gatsby.
Before I understood that Nick is gay I considered this to be a glaring flaw in Fitzgerald's writing. I got tired of being TOLD how great Gatsby was and waiting for Gatsby to demonstrate/prove his greatness. He never does, hence the proof that his greatness is only a figment of one character's hormone-fired imagination.
The only things Gatsby PROVES by his actions is that he's a rich, intelligent, unprincipled criminal; is obsessed with another man's beautiful wife; and can throw elaborate parties. And insult people by calling them "old sport." (If he called me that I'd bash him.) Greatness? Not.
Tom certainly didn't think he was great. Daisy didn't. Jordan didn't. We only hear about Gatsby's greatness from one voice--Nick's.
OMG just because he dated a woman from the LPGA you automatically think he is gay.
Michael wrote: "OMG just because he dated a woman from the LPGA you automatically think he is gay."Show me who else among the characters thinks Gatsby's great. Show me.
That's a pretty weak example if your argument is that Nick is attracted to Gatsby. Is that it, or do you have more?
Monty J wrote: "Michael wrote: "OMG just because he dated a woman from the LPGA you automatically think he is gay."Show me who else among the characters thinks Gatsby's great. Show me."
That's proof of homoerotic love? Wow. And here I thought it was empathy, seeing as how Gatsby is the only other real person in the entire community and West and East Egg.
Gary wrote: "That's a pretty weak example if your argument is that Nick is attracted to Gatsby. Is that it, or do you have more?"Michael, Matthew, Gary, you're jumping in on the tail end of an exchange. Read my post #208 and #194 and the intervening ones.
OK, I've gone back and read all the quotes. The exchange in the elevator and the event afterward is peculiar... but not really much indication of homosexuality. And I think you're parsing the narrative about Gatsby pretty thin in order to read that as gay. One man noting that another man is attractive doesn't make either of them gay. Fitzgerald needn't have painted his characters with so light a brush had that been his intent.Is there more to indicate the premise that Nick is gay?
Monty J wrote: "Gary wrote: "That's a pretty weak example if your argument is that Nick is attracted to Gatsby. Is that it, or do you have more?"Michael, Matthew, Gary, you're jumping in on the tail end of an e..."
No I've been here since this thread opened, and none of the arguments seem the slightest bit convincing to me. If anything, they seem forced and overly speculative, or worse, an attempt to impose modern day prejudice on a classic. An ambiguous scene in the elevator and Nick's admiration for a man do not a gay affair make. Just because homoeroticism was not something that one could openly explore in literature is not proof of concealed intent.
Has it not occurred to you that he describes Gatsby in idealized ways because its required by the narrative? The man represents the American Dream, a liar who is nevertheless more real than all those around him. Why wouldn't the narrator be in awe of him? Why wouldn't he sympathize and side with him? Are we so crass as to assume that it had to be homoerotic love for one man to admire another?
Matthew wrote: "Are we so crass as to assume that it had to be homoerotic love for one man to admire another? "Most of those quotes aren't even admiring. #2 and #4 are the same quote. #5 is just a scene description. #1 isn't really admiration. It's a character description. #3 is neutral. It could be admiration, but it could also be a description of Gatsby as a phoney. They don't even rise to the level of admiration, let alone homoerotic attraction.
So... unless there's more than that, I think we're dealing with more of a projection upon the prose than something FSF was trying to convey in a clandestine way.
Matthew: A) "Has it not occurred to you that he describes Gatsby in idealized ways because its required by the narrative?If the book's premise is based on Gatsby's special characteristics we need evidence of those characteristics not heresay from one, and only one, character, Nick the narrator. Let Gatsby prove his specialness through deeds and/or dialog. He's a liar and a crook and an attempted adulteror.
Matthew: B)The man represents the American Dream, a liar who is nevertheless more real than all those around him. Why wouldn't the narrator be in awe of him? Why wouldn't he sympathize and side with him?
The American Dream? Gatsby's a royal phoney. A crook. Other than being wealthy and throwing parties, there's nothing about Gatsby to be in awe of, unless you're infatuated with him like Nick. Again, Nick is the only character who's bonkers over Gatsby. If he were truly exceptional, there would be more substance to it. Other characters would voice an opinion similar to Nick's.
Matthew: C)Are we so crass as to assume that it had to be homoerotic love for one man to admire another? "
What is crass about homoeroticism? What's wrong with Nick being gay?
Gary wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Are we so crass as to assume that it had to be homoerotic love for one man to admire another? "Most of those quotes aren't even admiring. #2 and #4 are the same quote. #5 is jus..."
Thanks for pointing out the duplication. I've corrected and renumbered.
Apparently we just interpret things differently. If you can call paragraph #2 (formerly #3) as "neutral," I'm at a loss. This paragraph is rippling with over-the-top adulation. "It faced--or seemed to face--the whole external world for an instant, and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favor." He's talking about the look on a guy's face! C'mon! Be real.
Nick's language in these paragraphs is not the language of any "manly man" I've known.
These paragraphs cannot be separated from the bedroom scene with KcKee.
I'll see if I can find some more examples.
Monty J: "...there's nothing about Gatsby to be in awe of, unless you're infatuated with him like Nick."Hmm. Gatsby inspires plenty of awe in Wolfsheim. He was attractive to Dan Cody, who took him up. Don't forget Daisy was in love with him before she married Tom; and even when he re-enters her life, she is ready to run off with him.
Philip wrote: "Monty J: "...there's nothing about Gatsby to be in awe of, unless you're infatuated with him like Nick."Hmm. Gatsby inspires plenty of awe in Wolfsheim. He was attractive to Dan Cody, who took hi..."
Okay, let's talk about Wolfshiem, whose credibility is shot out of the starting blocks because he's a criminal in collaboration with Gatsby, hardly unbiased.
#1 (p.71) [Gatsby, Nick and Wolfie are having lunch. Gatsby leaves to make a phone call] [Wolfie] "Fine fellow, isn't he? Handsome to look at and a perfect gentleman." [nothing special here]
"Yes."
"He's an Oggsford man." [Wolfie has swallowed Gatsby's lie about attending Oxford. Still nothing special.]
"Oh!"
...
[Wolfie] "I made the pleasure of his acquaintance just after the war. But I knew I had discovered a man of fine breeding after I talked with him an hour. I said to myself: 'There's the kind of man you'd like to take home and introduce to your mother and sister.'" [He talked with him an hour and drew this sterling conclusion. Him, this gambler crook who fixed the World Series, is qualified to judge character?]
He paused. "I see you're looking at my cuff buttons." [Here Wolfsheim discredits himself (and his judgement of anyone else) by revealing cuff buttons made of human teeth.]
...
"Yeah, Gatsby's very careful about women. He would never so much as look at a friend's wife." [Why this unwarranted comment about women and wives? What a strange topic to bring up unprompted. And if Wolfie has so much respect for Gatsby, why doesn't he call him 'Mr. Gatsby" instead of just "Gatsby?"]
(4/8/13 addendum)
And as for Mr. Cody as an admirer of the 17 year-old Gatsby, here's Cody's testimony, narrated second-hand through the voice of Nick Carraway:
"I suppose he smiled at Cody--he had probably discovered that people liked him when he smiled. At any rate Cody asked him a few questions (one of them elicited the brand-new name) [of Jay Gatsby instead of James Gatz] and found that he was quick and extravagantly ambitious. A few days late he took him to Duluth and bought him a blue coat, six pairs of white duck trousers, and yachting cap. And when the Tuolomee left for the West Indies and the Barbary Coast Gatsby left too.
He was employed in a vague personal capacity--while he remained with Cody he was in turn steward, mate, skipper, secretary, and even jailor,for Dan Cody sober knew what lavish doings Dan Cody drunk might soon be about, and he provided for such contingencies by reposing more and more trust in Gatsby. The arrangement lasted five years, during which the boat went three times around the Continent."
So, a semi-retired alcoholic millionaire recognized "extravagant ambition" in a teenager and took him sailing for five years. Five years! That's extravagant ambition?
Action speaks louder than words. Once again, Gatzby does nothing to earn that distinction. (Other than smiling, because "he discovered that people liked him when he smiled.") There's just this vague notion of distinction coming from Cody and recited by Nick. As I have said above, in court this is called heresay evidence and inadmissible. But even so, I'll allow it for what it is worth, which is less than nothing.
If anything, Gatsby's relationship with Cody proves a lack of ambition. Five years on a boat, tied to the coattails of an alcoholic avoiding his wife? That's hardly extravagant ambition. That's being a nursemaid.
None of the three characters (Nick, Wolfie or Cody) who "testify" on behalf of Gatsby's "exceptional" characteristics has provided a shred of proof that Gatsby is anything but a wily lovestruck adulteror with a tainted fortune who consorts with mobsters, throws fancy parties and can throw money around.
American Dream? Give me a break!
Monty J wrote: "Matthew: A) "Has it not occurred to you that he describes Gatsby in idealized ways because its required by the narrative?If the book's premise is based on Gatsby's special characteristics we need..."
are you somehow getting stuck on the word "gorgeous" and refusing to read the rest of the excerpt that you yourself provided? that whole exceprt EXPLAINS the fascination. "some heightened sensitivity to the promises of life", "it was an extraordinary gift for hope".....nick is CLEARLY, fascinated with gatsby's capacity for hope, and gatsby's unshakeable belief in pulling himself out of his previous station in life. nick is more of a cynic. nick is poor and more or less accepts his place below the social elite. gatsby's rise ALMOST gives nick hope.
i mean, are you really trying to say that nick ISNT fascinated by gatsby's ambition and hope?
Monty J wrote: "Gary wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Are we so crass as to assume that it had to be homoerotic love for one man to admire another? "Most of those quotes aren't even admiring. #2 and #4 are the same quot..."
its not the language of any "manly man" you've ever known? how many princeton graduate poet/novelists from the 1920's have you ever known? are you next going to cite the use of the word "gay" to further your cause, without taking into account the fact that back then, the word had a totally different meaning?
Monty J wrote: "Philip wrote: "Monty J: "...there's nothing about Gatsby to be in awe of, unless you're infatuated with him like Nick."Hmm. Gatsby inspires plenty of awe in Wolfsheim. He was attractive to Dan Co..."
"'There's the kind of man you'd like to take home and introduce to your mother and sister.'" [He talked with him an hour and drew this sterling conclusion. Him, this gambler crook who fixed the World Series, is qualified to judge character?]"
its IRRELEVANT whether you want to believe wolfsheim is qualified to properly deem someone's character, or not. whats important, and more to the original point, is that he was a man who did, in fact, admire gatsby. or do you believe wolfsheim was so lacking in credibility, that we arent to even believe that? that he actually DIDNT admire gatby, and was simply lying to nick, cuz thats what crooks do.
"Yeah, Gatsby's very careful about women. He would never so much as look at a friend's wife." [Why this unwarranted comment about women and wives? What a strange topic to bring up unprompted. And if Wolfie has so much respect for Gatsby, why doesn't he call him 'Mr. Gatsby" instead of just "Gatsby?"]
"why this unwarranted comment about women and wives?"
are we talking about nick being gay, or gatsby being gay? because with this question, you seem to be changing the conversation. a couple sentences earlier, he says that gatsby is the kind of guy that you would take home to meet your mother and sister, so mentioning wives is not unwarranted at all, and is merely a continuation of wolsheims praise of gatsby, and portrayal of him as a standup guy.
"if he has so much respect for him, why doesnt he call him mr gatsby, instead of gatsby?"
you are really stretching here, and once again straying far from the original point. he doesnt call him "mr gatsby" because they are friends. friends often dont refer to each other so formally as "mr" how many times does nick refer to gatsby as just gatsby? all the time. you claim that he's in love with gatsby, but doesnt have enough respect for him to call him mr gatsby? there goes your entire argument!lol. furthermore, gatsby WORKS for wolfsheim. not many bosses are going to refer to their employees as "mr".
Luke wrote: "how many princeton graduate poet/novelists from the 1920's have you ever known? "Fitzgerald dropped out of Princeton. He had a drinking problem and was on scholastic probation most of the time. You're grasping at straws.
Luke wrote: "you claim that he's in love with gatsby"I said he was obsessed with him. Could have been just a sexual attraction, not love.
Monty J wrote: "Luke wrote: "how many princeton graduate poet/novelists from the 1920's have you ever known? "Fitzgerald dropped out of Princeton. He had a drinking problem and was on scholastic probation most o..."
so just because fitzgerald dropped out of princeton to join the army during WW I, he now isnt to be seen as the writer/poet with a flair for language? id say the fact that he didnt happen graduate, is VERY besides my point. you do realize that fitzgerald wrote for the princeton triangle club, the nassau lit, and the princeton tiger while he was at princeton, right? you do realize that it is said that he was on academic probation during his princeton years, BECAUSE his strict focus on his writing, caused him to neglect his other studies, right? you do realize, that in a sense, you are arguing that he wasnt talented writer, despite the fact that he DID write the great gatsby. that it was HIM describing gatsby in that unmanly way, right? you realize that fitzgerald writes that way in his other books, too, right? you are the one grasping at straws here.
Monty J wrote: "Luke wrote: "you claim that he's in love with gatsby"I said he was obsessed with him. Could have been just a sexual attraction, not love."
but what you see as obsession, couldnt have merely been admiration or fascination? there HAD to be a sexual element involved?
Luke wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Luke wrote: "how many princeton graduate poet/novelists from the 1920's have you ever known? "Fitzgerald dropped out of Princeton. He had a drinking problem and was on scholastic ..."
Overstating the obvious is arguing just to make noise. The discussion is about the character, not the author.
Monty J wrote: "Luke wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Luke wrote: "how many princeton graduate poet/novelists from the 1920's have you ever known? "Fitzgerald dropped out of Princeton. He had a drinking problem and was o..."
the irony in this statement of yours its quite comical.
if you wanted to focus on the character, why did you try to refute my statement? furthermore, if you are talking about the language a character(especially the narrator) uses in a book, the author is entirely relevant to the discussion, when you consider the fact that the author uses similar language and descriptions in his other works. also, when you consider the fact that many people actually see carraway as a stand in for fitzgerald himself, it becomes even more relevant.
this is from "this side of paradise"-"dick humbird had, ever since freshman year, seemed to amory a perfect type of aristocrat. he was slender but well built-black curly hair, straight features, and rather a dark skin. everything he said sounded intangibly appropriate. he possessed infinite courage, an averagely good mind, and a sense of honor with a clear charm and noblesse oblige that varied it from righteousness. he could dissipate without going to pieces, and even his most bohemian adventures never seemed "running it out." people dressed like him, tried to talk as he did...amory decided he probably held the world back, but he wouldnt have changed him...
he differed from the healthy type that was essentially middle class-he never seemed to perspire. some people couldnt be familiar with a chaffeur without having it returned; humbird could have lunched at sherry's with a colored man, yet people would have somehow known it was all right. he was not a snob, though he knew only half his class. his friends ranged from the highest to the lowest, but it was impossible to "cultivate" him. servants worshipped him, and treated him like a god. he seemed the eternal example of what the upper class tries to be.
"he's like those pictures in the illustrated london news of the english officers who have been killed," amory had said to alec."
the narrator of this side of paradise is a young man named amory blaine. here he is describing a friend of his at princeton. amory blaine describes humbird in a way that shows great admiration, but amory is NOT gay.
Luke wrote: "many people actually see carraway as a stand in for fitzgerald himself,"This happens with a lot of writers, unfortunately most people are simply wrong. Good writers create characters to suit the story, not play hide-and-seek with their identity.
But what if Nick was a stand-in for Fitzgerald? What purpose would it serve to have your life displayed for everyone to pick apart? And for some to lionize and identify with? Why would a writer subject him/erself to such scrutiny? Narcissism? Vanity? Masochism? It isn't logical.
Second-guessing an author is a risky business.
Returning to the topic of Nick's gayness, Fitzgerald wrote this scene with McKee for a reason. It sticks out like a sore thumb. McKee is never again mentioned in the novel. We can't erase it though. Max Perkins, Fitzgerald's editor, let it stay in while he cut a lot of other stuff. Why is this here unless there's a reason?
Once again, here's the scene:
...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...Lonliness...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."
Let's assume I'm right, that Fitzgerald is telling us, those of us who are tuned in, that Nick is gay. What purpose would be served if this is a tip-off?
One possible answer is that Fitzgerald was telegraphing a dual message, flipping the finger to the Eastern upper class wealth by having the voice of Gatsby's admirer, Nick, come from a "dreaded" homosexual.
If so, it turns the book into an insult, a slap in the face to the Eastern upper class instead of worship because (forgetting Cody for the moment) the only people in the book who speak up for Gatsby and his tainted wealth are a "queer" (Nick) and a mobster (Wolfsheim.)
Insincere flattery is a deft form of mockery, and I'm sure it's the most satisfying when the (snobby) targets aren't even smart enough to know when they've been impaled. They might even put your book on a Top 100 list.
Monty J wrote: "Luke wrote: "many people actually see carraway as a stand in for fitzgerald himself,"This happens with a lot of writers, unfortunately most people are simply wrong. Good writers create characters..."
most people are simply wrong.....because you say so? there are COUNTLESS instances of narrators serving as stand in's for the author. COUNTLESS. why? because it is easier to write from your own point of view. because this way, you can get your own feelings across. what is the point of writing if not to get a point across? is one more likely to slave over getting someone else's point across, or their own? i find it baffling that you find it illogical for an author do this. at the end of the day, all of the words in the book ARE the authors. anything they write is attributable to them, and no one else. therefore, no matter what they do, they are opening themselves up to scrutiny.
second guessing an author is a risky business? so MY stance is second guessing, but yours isnt?
flipping the finger to the eastern upper class by having the voice of gatsby's admirer come from a homosexual? gatsby was NOT part of the elite that fitzgerald views with disdain. thats almost the whole point of the story. so, in what way does that serve as flipping the finger? if anything, following your line of reasoning, having a "dreaded" gay man as the only admirer of gatsby helps to justify the elite class for shunning gatsby.
Monty J wrote: "Apparently we just interpret things differently. If you can call paragraph #2 (formerly #3) as "neutral," I'm at a loss. This paragraph is rippling with over-the-top adulation. "It faced--or seemed to face--the whole external world for an instant, and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favor." He's talking about the look on a guy's face! C'mon! Be real."Why is describing a look on a guy's face gay? That text doesn't read as over-the-top adulation at all to me. In fact, it's not even really a flattering description. He's describing how Gatsby is a fake. He makes people think he's interested in them as part of his overall strategy to be Mr. Popular, so he can lure in his one true love from his childhood.
I don't need a real direct statement, but so far we've got a secondary character accidentally touching an elevator handle, and Gatsby described from Nick's POV in ways that are more neutral than anything else.
I think we could make a better argument that Tom is a repressed homosexual and Daisy secretly a man given our current evidence regarding Nick.
Philip wrote: "Monty J: "...there's nothing about Gatsby to be in awe of, unless you're infatuated with him like Nick."Hmm. Gatsby inspires plenty of awe in Wolfsheim. He was attractive to Dan Cody, who took hi..."
Here's the addendum that I pasted to the first part of my answer, above.
(4/8/13 addendum)
"And as for Mr. Cody as an admirer of the 17 year-old Gatsby, here's Cody's testimony, narrated second-hand through the voice of Nick Carraway:
"I suppose he smiled at Cody--he had probably discovered that people liked him when he smiled. At any rate Cody asked him a few questions (one of them elicited the brand-new name) [of Jay Gatsby instead of James Gatz] and found that he was quick and extravagantly ambitious. A few days late he took him to Duluth and bought him a blue coat, six pairs of white duck trousers, and yachting cap. And when the Tuolomee left for the West Indies and the Barbary Coast Gatsby left too.
He was employed in a vague personal capacity--while he remained with Cody he was in turn steward, mate, skipper, secretary, and even jailor,for Dan Cody sober knew what lavish doings Dan Cody drunk might soon be about, and he provided for such contingencies by reposing more and more trust in Gatsby. The arrangement lasted five years, during which the boat went three times around the Continent."
So, a semi-retired alcoholic millionaire recognized "extravagant ambition" in a teenager and took him sailing for five years. Five years! That's extravagant ambition?
Action speaks louder than words. Once again, Gatzby does nothing to earn that distinction. There's just this vague notion of distinction coming from Cody and recited by Nick. As I have said above, in court this is called heresay evidence and inadmissible. But even so, I'll allow it for what it is worth, which is less than nothing.
If anything, Gatsby's relationship with Cody proves a lack of ambition. Five years on a boat, tied to the coattails of an alcoholic avoiding his wife? That's hardly extravagant ambition. That's being a nursemaid.
None of the three characters (Nick, Wolfie or Cody) who "testify" on behalf of Gatsby's "exceptional" characteristics has provided a shred of proof that Gatsby is anything but a wily lovestruck adulteror with a tainted fortune who consorts with mobsters, throws fancy parties and can throw money around.
American Dream? Give me a break!
Monty J wrote: "Matthew: A) "Has it not occurred to you that he describes Gatsby in idealized ways because its required by the narrative?If the book's premise is based on Gatsby's special characteristics we need..."
Well argued Monty, allow me to respond in the way you have, by addressing your rebuttals.
"If the book's premise is based on Gatsby's special characteristics we need evidence of those characteristics not heresay from one, and only one, character, Nick the narrator. Let Gatsby prove his specialness through deeds and/or dialog. He's a liar and a crook and an attempted adulteror."
You're saying Gatsby's to prove his worth through some means other than the narrator's perspective? How is this to be done if the entire story is being narrated by one man? What deeds or dialogue would prove his worth to you? And if anything, I thought his character came through loud and clear through his backstory, which included his love of Daisy, his unrelenting optimism, and his attempts to win her back. As for his crimes, that's the entire point isn't it? And it was well established that his aim was wealth so he could have the woman he loved. The only way to get rich in this world if you weren't born into wealth was to commit to a life of crime. To say, he should of simply worked hard and let Daisy go would be naive and pedantic to say the least.
"The American Dream? Gatsby's a royal phoney. A crook. Other than being wealthy and throwing parties, there's nothing about Gatsby to be in awe of, unless you're infatuated with him like Nick. Again, Nick is the only character who's bonkers over Gatsby. If he were truly exceptional, there would be more substance to it. Other characters would voice an opinion similar to Nick's."
Who amongst the people in West Egg and East Egg aren't phoneys? This is the entire premise of the book, which seems to be forgotten here. Tom is an adulterer, a racist, and a bully. The people Gatsby lives amongst are total narcissists and took freely from him but cared nothing for him and didn't even bother to attend his funeral. And once again, Nick seems to like him, he's not "bonkers" simply because he admired what he represents. And as for other characters admiring him, what do you call the praise of his own father? No one else could have since that would violate one of the main premises of the book, which was that no one knew who Gatsby truly was.
"What is crass about homoeroticism? What's wrong with Nick being gay?"
Nothing, if that is in fact what the author suggested, but this all seems like an attempt to find something that isn't there simply because its fashionable. And the ironic thing is, this does no service to gay people or their portrayal in literature. If anything, its a set-back because it seeks to seeks to label people and assume significance about them not based on their character but based on their sexual orientation. And frankly, I and others here have already had one person try to accuse us of homophobia by denying his sexual orientation, so I do hope you're not going there.
Monty J wrote: "Philip wrote: "Monty J: "...there's nothing about Gatsby to be in awe of, unless you're infatuated with him like Nick."Hmm. Gatsby inspires plenty of awe in Wolfsheim. He was attractive to Dan Co..."
Once again, you sound very harsh and bitter in your judgements of Gatsby and your dismissal of the main premise of this book. Do you not see how the commentary is trying to say that the dream of wealth and opportunity was a lie? Would you seriously condemn what a poor kid did to try and get a taste o the good life and the woman he loved?
If you're so concerned about the morality of this character, why not the characters of Tom and Daisy? She's the one who let a woman die at her hands, and she even let Gatsby take the wrap for it and be murdered. Tom cheats and abuses people and is a virulent racist, and his complicity in Daisy's crime was relatively clear too. Gatsby may have lied and cheated to get where he was, but in that respect, he was no different than any of them. Except that his motivations were far more pure.
Monty J wrote: "Philip wrote: "Monty J: "...there's nothing about Gatsby to be in awe of, unless you're infatuated with him like Nick."Hmm. Gatsby inspires plenty of awe in Wolfsheim. He was attractive to Dan Co..."
if you reread the the post that you quoted here, you will see that the person merely said that he was attractive to dan cody. but, how can you not agree with that assertion? obviously, dan cody saw SOMETHING in him, if he were to take him on, no?
i think you are getting away from the point, though. you now seem bent on simply disparaging gatsby's character, which in essence disparages the story, because if gatsby is an entirely unlikeable guy, who cares about the story? why would we care that he dies? why does nick care? oh, right, the only reason nick cares, is because he wants to get gatsby in bed. i forgot. gatsby's death is MEANT to be seen as a tragedy of sorts.
if you still are bent on making gatsby out to be a bad guy, tho, feel free. but dont forget to take a few other things into account. apparently a beautiful young debutante, whom every serviceman in louisville was trying to court, saw something in him. she also saw enough in him, to cheat on her husband. apparently the army saw enough in him to promote him to lieutenant, no? or do you think that was a lie too? i suppose all of his war medals were fake. maybe he never even was in the army. maybe he had the uniform made just to go visit daisy. and maybe it was just luck that gatsby correctly guessed what division nick had been in in the war.
Luke wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Philip wrote: "Monty J: "...there's nothing about Gatsby to be in awe of, unless you're infatuated with him like Nick."Hmm. Gatsby inspires plenty of awe in Wolfsheim. He was attr..."
And let's not forget the entire basis of this "unreliability of Nick as the narrator". What does that even mean? That his opinion can't be counted on because he's speaking out of love rather than sincere admiration? How much of a reach is that? And it, much like the assumption that Gatsby is a bad man, completely negates the whole point of the book.
In one fell swoop, it has gone from being a indictment on the leisure class and a criticism of the American Dream - which was abundantly clear in the text and Fitzgerald announced as much again and again in his correspondence - and has become a story of a man loving another man, with everything else just being incidental.
Matthew wrote: "Luke wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Philip wrote: "Monty J: "...there's nothing about Gatsby to be in awe of, unless you're infatuated with him like Nick."Hmm. Gatsby inspires plenty of awe in Wolfsheim..."
fitzgerald is obviously unreliable as a writer, though, so i guess we really shoulda seen it that way all along...
I don't feel that his sexual orientation is even important. Maybe he admired Gatsby, maybe he wanted to screw him, maybe both. He's an unreliable narrator anyway. In what way do you think he would tell the story differently based on whether he was straight or gay?
Cara wrote: "I don't feel that his sexual orientation is even important. Maybe he admired Gatsby, maybe he wanted to screw him, maybe both. He's an unreliable narrator anyway. In what way do you think he would ..."Perhaps Fitzgerald left Nick's gender orientation ambiguous for a reason, so different people could interpret the story differently. (A Hemingway trick.)
It's up to the reader to decide how "gay" Nick is. Perhaps the McKee episode was a first experience. We'll never know how far it went between them.
Sexual orientation of a character is important for the reason I cited above. Homosexuality was a serious social tabu at the time of this novel, considered a character flaw. A gay narrator would be automatically suspicious and regarded as unreliable. Anyone liked by a gay character would be tainted, and the reverse is also true.
If Gatsby is to be regarded as a hero, a champion of the American Dream rags to riches lore, which he is widely held to be, he would be tainted by having Nick, his greatest admirer and the one who defines our perception of Gatsby, turn out to be gay.
I'm not one of those who sees Gatsby as such a hero. He's quite the reverse. Others only seem to see him as he is presented through Nick's eyes, whereas I judge Gatsby by his deeds and by the sordid company he keeps. Those people choose to ignore Gatsby's dark side, which I have enumerated above (criminal activity, adultery, lying, consorting with mobsters and several people mentioned they heard he'd killed a man.) If people want to put on blinders and join Nick in worshiping Gatsby, that's their prerogative.
But if, as I believe is the case, Fitzgerald wanted to up the ante against Gatsby by having Nick be gay, it's a further taint of the man so lionized because he throws big parties and makes grandiose gestures and displays of wealth.
Fitzgerald is saying, "Watch out! You can't trust the rich. They'll screw your wives (as did Tom and Gatsby). They'll lie. They'll break the law. Etc. Basically, they're a pretty sick bunch of people."
Fitz, by making Nick gay, is saying not to trust Nick's judgement, Nick, who worships Gatsby and through him what he represents, wealth at any cost. Nick's gayness is Fitzgerald's literary tool to discredit Gatsby through Nick, and through Gatsby to what he stands for.
A) Matthew wrote: "You're saying Gatsby's to prove his worth through some means other than the narrator's perspective? How is this to be done if the entire story is being narrated by one man? "(Lots of good observations here. Kudos.)
A) This is the obvious flaw in Fitzgerald's choice of point of view--first person omniscient (or first-person with several omniscient shifts.) When you go with first-person you're stuck with that person's limited perception, unless you slip in a few omniscient dalliances, which Fitzgerald does.
Since he does this (do I need to cite examples?), he could just as easily have SHOWN Gatsby doing something honorable. Or Gatsby's fortune could have been made more honorably. Even card counting at Vegas would have beat bootlegging. And why did Gatsby have to consort with mobsters? He could have had a priest or a prominent Baptist minister for a friend (as Richard Russo did in Empire Falls.) Gatsby could have given a speech to raise money for orphans. There are any number of ways to develop a character by their deeds and dialog, regardless who is narrating. The narrator, assuming they're not delusional, biased (Gatsby's father is disqualified for bias) or lying, has to report what he/she sees or hears.
B) And the ironic thing is, this does no service to gay people or their portrayal in literature. If anything, its a set-back because it seeks to seeks to label people and assume significance about them not based on their character but based on their sexual orientation.
It's ironic and sad but we can't change history (despite the way Hollywood tries and gets away with--did you see Django?) Nobody likes to read "nigger," "kike" or "spic" or "bitch" either, but these discriminatory words and attitudes are part of our history. We deny them at the risk of having them resurrected and repeated. We dishonor the struggle against bigotry by denying it existed.
Fitzgerald chose to show us Gatsby's flawed character for a reason. And he chose to have Nick progress from naive swooning admiration toward disillusioned as he got to know Gatsby better, then disillusioned by practically everyone's actions. Was anyone left unscathed? Even the hardworking Wilson murdered someone. Perhaps Nick. Yes, Nick turned his back on them all and went west.
Kevin wrote: "Moreover, it is interesting for the details he is aware of noticing/reporting and those he is not aware he is noticing/reporting. Certain details that he glosses over are interesting for the fact that he does gloss over them."Precisely.
By artfully managing Nick's awareness we grow with him toward the inevitable conclusion that Nick reaches, namely the bursting of his bubble of preconception that the wealthy are some special breed with quasi-supernatural powers.
Monty J wrote: "Cara wrote: "I don't feel that his sexual orientation is even important. Maybe he admired Gatsby, maybe he wanted to screw him, maybe both. He's an unreliable narrator anyway. In what way do you th..."you insist on saying that nick is obsessed with, or worships gatsby, and yet as evidence, you simply cite his glowing description, but you still fail to realize that this is simply part of the narrative, and that fitzgerald writes like this is other novels(take note of the excerpt i provided earlier from "this side of paradise". did you choose to not read it, or did you simply not respond, because it didnt suit your argument to do so?)nick clearly admires gatsby's capacity for hope, and specifically says as much. there are times in the book when nick actually doesnt even seem to like gatsby("gatsby who represented everything for which i have a unaffected scorn") , and at the end, its clear that he actually pities gatsby.
gatsby is not supposed to be a hero in the traditional sense, but rather a tragic figure. he is almost supposed to represent a darker side of the american dream, or, the shortcomings of the american dream. not some kind of honorable champion. nick's admiration for gatsby is not meant to taint him, because nick was gay. nicks admiration was meant to give gatsby a human element. make him seem more real and likeable, and, by doing so, making his downfall and death appear tragic ("no, gatsby turned out all right in the end"). if gatsby's death isnt tragic in some way, what is the point of the story? where is its power? if you truly believe gatsby's death wasnt tragic, then you rob yourself of the beauty of the last page-
"and as i sat there brooding on the old, unknown world, i thought of gatsby's wonder when he first picked out the green light at the end of daisy's dock. he had come a long way to this blue lawn, and his dream must have seemed so close that he could hardly fail to grasp it. he did not know that it was already behind him, somewhere back in that vast obscurity beyond the city, where the dark fields of the republic rolled on under the night.
gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. it eluded us then, but thats no matter-tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther.....and one fine morning-"
are you REALLY going to tell me that this page isnt INTENDED to make gatsby appear as a tragic figure? that we are still supposed to see only the bad in gatsby at that point? are you really gonna tell me, that fitzgerald wanted gatsby to appear as a wholly unsavory character(as you repeatedly suggest), yet he wrote that? again, if gastby isnt to be seen as a tragic figure, where is the power of the story? why do we care?
"Nick, who worships Gatsby and through him what he represents, wealth at any cost."
wow. just wow. what character did you actually LIKE in this book? you bash nicks character, you bash gatsby, who's left? let me ask you, did you really get the impression that nick worshipped "wealth at any cost"? in the beginning, nick says "gatsby represented everything for which i had an unaffected scorn". at this point, nick is referring to his initial impression of gatsby referring to his wealth and opulence. he then says "gatsby turned out all right in the end"-this is after nick got to see him as a real person, rather than a symbol of wealth. wealth for the sake of wealth, was never even the point for gatsby, either. gastby himself, craved wealth as the means to an end. in his mind, wealth equaled acceptance(even if we later see he was wrong, this is what he thought), and therefore, was his ticket to win back daisy.
"Fitzgerald is saying, "Watch out! You can't trust the rich. They'll screw your wives (as did Tom and Gatsby). They'll lie. They'll break the law. Etc. Basically, they're a pretty sick bunch of people.""
YOU want to lump gatsby in with the other rich people in the book, but fitzgerald CLEARLY didnt. if fitzgerald HAD wanted to lump gatsby in with the evil elite class, why did he make gatsby a socially unaccepted outsider? if he wanted to rally against rich people in general, as you seem to suggest, why wouldnt he have made gatsby socially accepted by the rest of the leisure class in the book? once again, you are throwing the MAJOR themes of the book out the window, in order to prove a relatively minor point, at best.
Monty J wrote: "Cara wrote: "I don't feel that his sexual orientation is even important. Maybe he admired Gatsby, maybe he wanted to screw him, maybe both. He's an unreliable narrator anyway. In what way do you th..."one more point-you have contended(more than once) that nick's purpose is to taint or discredit gatsby, through nicks praise of him. you HAVE contended this. so following that line of reasoning, it would have been fitzgeralds intention for the reader to NOT like nick. no? if a characters praise of someone or something, is MEANT to have adverse effects, isnt it only logical, that that character is intended to be unlikeable? if you are correct, and this IS the case, then fitzgerald failed MISERABLY, because practically every person i have ever talked to about the great gatsby, loves nick carraway.
Luke wrote: if a characters praise of someone or something is meant to have adverse effects, isnt it only logical, that that character is intended to be unlikeable? if you are correct, and this IS the case, then fitzgerald failed MISERABLY, because practically every person i have ever talked to about the great gatsby, loves nick carrawayArguably, that's part of the "trick." We like Nick Carraway so we like Gatsby and dislike Tom Buchanan. If there was no bias or inconsistencies in Nick's narration, then it might as well be objective third person. Nick is human -- even if he sets out to "reserve all judgments," he cannot resist doing just that.
I am charmed by Nick's inner romantic (a trait that film adaptations unfortunately lack because they lose his narration), which is probably why Gatsby charms Nick and by extension us.
However, neither Nick nor Gatsby are noble people. Nick arranges for someone he barely knows to make a move on his college friend's wife. Most readers consistently forgive this action but I don't see how it's anything but awful. The most benign interpretation is that Nick knows that Tom is cheating on Daisy and thinks that Daisy would be happier with someone who *truly* loves her. If so, that's rather naive. What he knows of Gatsby so far should give him pause. A key scene, I think, is when Gatsby clumsily offers to set up a "business" connection for Nick and Nick acknowledges that if he'd said yes, it might have led to one of the great crises of his life. So, someone so shady that it would be catastrophic to do business with him, someone who knows a professional gambler, is someone Nick would set up with his own cousin? And this is not a "good for the goose, good for the gander" type society. Nick knows full well that Daisy would have been ruined by any known relationship with Gatsby. Gatsby's dream is impossible. And here's the kicker -- it was justly impossible. Even now, would any of us want our relatives to get mixed up with a drug dealer? No matter how great his parties were?
I've digressed a bit, but my larger point is that Nick's embrace of Gatsby makes no logical sense upon examination. He *is* everything for which Nick has an "unaffected scorn." So, it's worthwhile to discuss how Gatsby was able to "throw dust" in his eyes.
Now Gatsby might very well be worth Tom, Daisy, and Jordan "put together." But that doesn't necessarily make him someone we should hang out with or proclaim as "great." Nick does nothing but castigate Myrtle Wilson for daring to hold the same "dream" of social mobility through romance as Gatsby (he also scoffs at the newly wealthy black people they pass on their way to lunch -- he seems to allow the purity of the American dream only for white men). Myrtle's sole crime is one of adultery and you get the impression that Tom's stringing her along is the only reason she continues to lie to her husband (in other words, if Tom had offered to marry her at any point, she would have left George). Gatsby builds a monument of sin, as well as committing adultery himself (this, though, is arguable -- again, film adaptations literalize Gatsby and Daisy's affair but we are never told out right if they consummate their relationship in the book. I would argue that they don't because Gatsby would view that as cheapening his dream.)
LUKE wrote: YOU want to lump gatsby in with the other rich people in the book, but fitzgerald CLEARLY didnt. if fitzgerald HAD wanted to lump gatsby in with the evil elite class, why did he make gatsby a socially unaccepted outsider?."Gatsby is largely socially unacceptable because he is "new money." This is Fitzgerald's commentary on the "illusion" of the American dream. Despite what we claim, we are still a class-conscious society and true social mobility is limited. Gatsby desires in Daisy the potential to "fully" obliterate James Gatz but that's not possible.
However, Fitzgerald complicates things by making the source of Gatsby's wealth criminal in nature. He is naive (and a liar) if he thinks that Daisy would leave her husband for a "common swindler." Heck, even if Tom Buchanan had never entered the picture, Daisy would have faced social ruin by marrying a bootlegger.
If Fitzgerald had made Gatsby a movie star -- a handsome poor kid who met up with Hollywood producer Dan Cody and got famous, then we could more clearly condemn East Egg society for rejecting him. He is a self-made man and deserves our respect, as opposed to a guy who hangs out with criminals and is most likely a criminal himself.
I think this is intentional. East Egg society is hypocritical -- it willingly enjoys the "fun" that dirty money can afford. It even basically makes that dirty money possible by continuing to drink alcohol during a time of prohibition. Gatsby only sells what these East Eggers want... and he doesn't even drink himself!
Stephen wrote: "Luke wrote: if a characters praise of someone or something is meant to have adverse effects, isnt it only logical, that that character is intended to be unlikeable? if you are correct, and this IS ..."Stephen wrote: "Luke wrote: if a characters praise of someone or something is meant to have adverse effects, isnt it only logical, that that character is intended to be unlikeable? if you are correct, and this IS ..."
first of all, NO ONE is exactly noble. the reason people love and relate to nick carraway, is because he seems real. he has his imperfections, but he is more or less an honest, nice guy. i dont think people appreciate gatsby for any nobility either, people appreciate his character because in the end, he ISNT larger than life. he is imperfect and therefore also seems more real to people. the title "the great gastby" almost takes on two different meanings. at first, he seems to be this mysterious, larger than life persona, but by the end, you almost see it with a hint of sarcasm. in the end, he was human.
as per nick setting up a meeting between gatsby and daisy-what DOES nick know at this point? nick knows that daisy's best friend is in favor of the meeting. nick knows that daisy was once in love with this man. also, he knows that daisy's husband cheats on her, and doesnt seem the slightest bit remorseful about it. in fact, he is so brazen as to allow his mistress to call during dinner, and he brings his wifes cousin along on one of his rendesvous's. so, is it really that shameful to set up this meeting, especially if he really doesnt even know what will come of it? "did i have to know all this before he could ask such a little thing?" nick asks jordan in reference to setting up the meeting. if nick thought it was scandalous, or even a big deal, would he have called it "such a little thing"?
you say that he never should have agreed to set up a meeting with so shady a man. well, once again, daisy's best friend is all for it, and knows just as much about gatsby as nick. but what does nick really even know about gatsby? there are all sorts of rumors, but gatsby tells him he is in the oil business. gastby produces a picture of himself at oxford, a story that even wolfsheim backs up. obviously his association with wolfsheim is a red flag, but nick doesnt really know what to think, and as we all know, nick is "inclined to reserve judgements".
comparing gatsby to a drug dealer is a very weak comparison. bootleggers were NOT seen in such a bad light, because alcohol consumption was not frowned upon in the 20's. are the "roaring 20's", quite so roaring without alcohol? YOU may automatically conjure up thoughts of al capone, when you think about bootleggers, but would someone from the 20's? you do realize that jfk's father was a bootlegger too, right? now, im not saying that it was an honorable business, and im not saying it was entirely socially acceptable back in the 20's. but, if it was equal to a drug dealer, would jfk have ever become president? would the buchanan's EVER have attended one of gatsby's parties? would congressmen and senators attend them, as it is said in the book? and, once again, it is ASSUMED that gatsby was a bootlegger, but never confirmed. we never really know exactly how gatsby made his money.
Stephen wrote: "LUKE wrote: YOU want to lump gatsby in with the other rich people in the book, but fitzgerald CLEARLY didnt. if fitzgerald HAD wanted to lump gatsby in with the evil elite class, why did he make ga..."i agree that is why gatsby is socially unacceptable, maybe you should read the entire thread and get a frame of reference as to why i said that.
gatsby IS naive. thats is basically his tragic flaw. he fails to see that he lost daisy a long time ago(refer once again to the last page of the book).
There is no doubt that the central character is at least Bisexual with a certain lean toward homosexuality. It makes the writing more riveting and secretive. Homosexaulity was more accpeted by the upper class esp when they were hosting the best parties. I loved the lusty story.
Luke wrote: "gatsby IS naive. thats is basically his tragic flaw. he fails to see that he lost daisy a long time ago(refer once again to the last page of the book). "Precisely. It's the major point of this brilliant dissection of the American Dream. What makes Gatsby so intriguing to me is that his obsession (I have a hard time calling what he demonstrated love) with Daisy is what leads to his destruction. It put him in the car with her when she struck and killed Myrtle.
(But I don't like the fact that Daisy got off "scott" free, pun intended.)
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Max Perkins: Editor of Genius (other topics)
A Life in Letters (other topics)
It Can't Happen Here (other topics)
The Sons of Maxwell Perkins: Letters of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Thomas Wolfe, and Their Editor (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
The Great Gatsby (other topics)Max Perkins: Editor of Genius (other topics)
A Life in Letters (other topics)
It Can't Happen Here (other topics)
The Sons of Maxwell Perkins: Letters of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Thomas Wolfe, and Their Editor (other topics)
More...
over the course of the novel there is mention of atleast three heterosexual relationships that nick has had, but, any evidence of any homosexual relationship that nick has had, is entirely conjecture. but yeah, you're right, its shocking that anyone could think nick was straight.