The Great Gatsby
discussion
Is Gatsby a Romantic Hero, or Tragic Hero?
date
newest »
newest »
I think Gatsby's tragic flaw is his faith in The American Dream which in his case is Daisy. What is The American Dream? Well, The American Dream is a sort of idealism which sets opportunities for prestige, success, and freedom. For Gatsby, this means DAISY. SO I think, that The American Dream is different for everyone, but I digress. One could argue that Gatsby is a tragic hero, but that is all based on evidence from text or from the author himself. I personally think that Jay Gatsby is in fact a TRAGIC HERO, but that's just me.
I agree with the interpretation of Daisy as the American Dream. In the novel Gatsby even describes her as having a "voice full of money" that entrances Gatsby. Daisy is also often described as bright or shining. However, although she is beautiful, charming, and wealthy she is also shallow and fickle. The novel can be seen as a cautionary tale. I do not think it is a romantic work but rather it has a very cynical view of the American Dream and the value placed on material wealth during the 1920s.
A lot of things that are so-called 'flops' in the beginning turn out to actually be really great. (Wizard of Oz and It's a Wonderful Life are two that come to mind.) Jay Gatsby is definitely a Tragic Hero. The book is full of romantic elements -- although they are sadly misguided. It is an interesting and maybe sarcastic exploration of the 'American Dream'.
I would not say it's a commercial flop. I definitely disliked the fact that I had no idea what was happening in the first chapter though. Plus, all the symbolism with colours and the use of literary devices such as pathetic fallacy (the weather seemed to be in sync with Gatsby's mood and well-being) make it a classic and a perfect educational tool.
I'd say he's a modern hero, as he's far from idealised. He has flaws, he's greedy, vain, prone to ostentation, cocky. On the other hand, he's also a tragic hero concerning both his fate and the fact he would never be fully accepted by burgois/aristocratic society.
Tommy wrote: "Why was Fitzgerald's masterpiece such a terrible commercial flop? Why were all the movie versions more or less flops? I mean, how can a movie with Mia Farrow AND Robert Redford flop? I suggest the ..."The novel's commercial success may have been influenced by the state of post World War I shock the country was in. Gatsby was published in 1925, seven years after the war, time for the enormous loss of life and missing limbs to have sunk in. The book barely gives the war a nod, exploiting it by showing Gatsby as an offensive medal-waving hero pitied and exploited by crime boss Wolfsheim.
Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, released within a year of Gatsby, enjoyed immediate success because he dealt more directly with the country's mood of loss, disillusionment and disorientation and satirized war and its medals.
I generally agree with your post, except the tragic flaws of romance and ambition are shared, as Daisy is entwined with Gatsby's warped tunnel vision of success. She is the trophy, the diamond in a crown tarnished by Gatsby's callous disregard for the widows and orphans he steals from in his latest bond scam and the people who got sick on his bootlegged liquor or lost their lives on behalf of him and Wolfsheim. Even Myrtle's death was dismissed by Gatsby as inconsequential.
But Nick's subtle but undeniable unrequited gay crush on Gatsby, ignored in all the films, bears consideration.
Richard: " (the weather seemed to be in sync with Gatsby's mood and well-being)"
Why then would Fitzgerald have it rain on Gatsby's happiest moment, when he reunited with Daisy? Perhaps it was to symbolize Nick's disappointment in losing Gatsby to her of the voice full of money? (Spoken here by Leonardo DiCaprio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgVuh... )
There was more than one romance to consider. Nick's warm feelings toward Gatsby either muddy the romantic waters of the story or flavor them, depending on your sensibilities toward homosexuality.
The narrator's (and the author's) romantic feelings are there on the page enough to jiggle the camera away from just Gatsby and Daisy yet the book falls well short of an all-out love triangle. Film-makers have chosen to ignore Nick's infatuation but readers cannot erase the ink that delivers it.
Nick's gay feelings toward Gatsby add to the story's realism and jolt the reader into seeing Gatsby and the corruption of capitalist excess more clearly. Nick's feelings involve him and draw him more in the story, making him more human and a less than reliable or impartial narrator. Because Nick is gay he seems more real, more honest, perhaps more gullible and vulnerable to the inherent distortions in the American Dream that Fitzgerald so deftly satirizes .
Monty J wrote: "Tommy wrote: "Why was Fitzgerald's masterpiece such a terrible commercial flop? Why were all the movie versions more or less flops? I mean, how can a movie with Mia Farrow AND Robert Redford flop? ..."We don't know Nick is gay- again, there was nothing in the book to support this except a drunken night of Nick not knowing what he did, if anything, due to a blackout. Nick was enamored with Gatsby and could have had a man crush, (which is not the same) but I read the book three times and while I didn't concentrate on whether or not Nick was gay (because it's irrelevant) I did not see it in the book- and my review is Nick's point of view.
Sorry, Karen, but I respectfully disagree. I had not noted the homosexual aspect until the reviewers on GR pointed it out, but it is definitely there. He describes Tom B.s person with an overly apt physical description as he does with JG's. He slips up and hints at his pseudo encounter at 2 a.m. in the bedroom of one of the male guests.It's very obvious to me that he is bi at this point. What I don't understand is as to why SF would have to be so indiscreet as to write was almost a confession. It seems that Nick and SF were working at cross purposes.
Noni wrote: "personally i do not believe that being a tragic hero cannot mean that one can also be a romantic hero. As we have also read in several novels,for example Wuthering heights, a romance can be quite t..."I agree that there can be tragic/romantic heroes, but I don't think Gatsby thought of Daisy as his true love- she was an idea of love and his great obsession. He wanted only what he wanted and did not care that she had a daughter and the sacrifice she would have to make- I think he was dilusional.
Geoffrey wrote: "Sorry, Karen, but I respectfully disagree. I had not noted the homosexual aspect until the reviewers on GR pointed it out, but it is definitely there. He describes Tom B.s person with an overly apt..."We do disagree- and when I read the novel a fourth time, I will probably still have the same view. You say it is definately there- I don't see the definately there, and it is irrelevant to the story.
I personally think that Nick is not homosexual, and even if he is, I think it's irrelevant to the story. I believe the focus of the story is more on the fact that Gatsby was victimized by the perversion of The American Dream. Again, back to the topic, is Gatsby a tragic hero? Well, first-off, we have to know what a tragic hero is. The term "tragic hero" is I believe, dubbed by Greek philosopher Aristotle. A tragic hero is a literary figure: such as Gatsby, who makes a judgmental mistake that leads to the character's downfall. Apart from this, the character must have a tragic flaw(debatable for Jay Gatsby), a reversal of fortune, the character must also recognize that he has made a mistake. For Gatsby, his realization happened while he was taking a swim in his pool which he has never used before, seconds before George Wilson killed him. Finally, the character eventually dies, which obviously happened. Whether Gatsby is a tragic hero or not is based on the person but I think that Gatsby meets the criteria of a "tragic hero."
Karen wrote: "We don't know Nick is gay- again, there was nothing in the book to support this except a drunken night of Nick not knowing what he did, if anything, due to a blackout."There is much, much more than that one scene. The analysis is here in detail: http://www.wattpad.com/story/18854620...
Even Hemingway saw Nick/Fitzgerald's homosexuality on his first reading of TGG, and he wrote about it 30 years later in his memoir, A Movable Feast, as I describe here: Insight in to Fitzerald's apparent bisexuality is revealed in Hemingway's comments about The Great Gatsby in his memoir, A Moveable Feast, posthumously published in 1964 long after Scott's death and written from Hemingway's long lost contemporaneous journals recovered in 1958: (p. 174). "When I had finished the book I knew that no matter what Scott did, nor how he behaved, I must know it was like a sickness and be of any help I could to him and try to be a good friend. He had many good, good friends, more than anyone I knew. But I enlisted as one more, whether I could be of any use to him or not."
Direct your attention to: "I knew that no matter what Scott did, nor how he behaved, I must know it was like a sickness and be of any help I could to him and try to be a good friend." Why the outpouring of sympathy from someone as macho as Hemingway at a time when he should have been applauding Fitgerald's publication success? What was Hemingway talking about if not Fitzgerald's inferred bisexuality expressed so blatantly through Carraway's interaction with McKee?
At first reading I thought "It was like a sickness" meant Scott's alcoholism, but homosexuality makes more sense in light of the way Fitzgerald dealt with the subject in both The Great Gatsby and Tender is the Night. In this telling comment, was Hemingway throwing Fitzgerald under the bus by outing him while pretending to be friendly, or was he expressing genuine sympathy at significant personal professional risk?
Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "We don't know Nick is gay- again, there was nothing in the book to support this except a drunken night of Nick not knowing what he did, if anything, due to a blackout."There is much..."
Interesting. I had read the book a few times and it never occurred to be that Nick was gay or bi-sexual. But upon revisting the 'Mr. McGee' scene it seems so obvious. If SF wanted to portray a mere drunken blackout, there are other ways to do it...
Also, in a novel so sparse of words why would that scene even be included if it did not have some significance?
I am not sure that writing a gay character means that SF himself is gay. But it certainly shows his depth as an author.
Christine wrote: "I am not sure that writing a gay character means that SF himself is gay. But it certainly shows his depth as an author."True. Short of a confession or being caught en flagrante delicto, the case for homosexuality is always circumstantial (no pun intended.)
Hemingway was in a position to know more than most people on the subject of Scott's gender identity. He has written on the topic. In A Movable Feast, he recounts the time when Fitzgerald, having, according to Scott, been criticized by Zelda as inadequate in the sexual equipment department, came to his office and asked him to inspect his penis and render an opinion about it's size. They even went to a museum to observe male sculptures for comparison. Hemingway also commented that Scott had had no other woman but Zelda. He notably uses the word "woman," not "lovers," an intimate tidbit presumably revealed by Scott in conversation with Hemingway.
Add to this the level of attention Scott devoted to the subject via doppelganger Nick in TGG and even more so in Tender is the Night, his following novel.
But most telling is Nick Caraway. Fitzgerald could much more easily have narrated The Great Gatsby in third person. Why did he make himself jump through hoops to tell the story in first-person, and through a gay narrator, unless it was a device for coming out to the gay community?
But doesn't Scott Fitzgerald deserve a bit more credit? Ponder what it means to have a gay person narrate social satire. Not only is the corruption of capitalism gone wild put on trial, but so is society's attitude toward homosexuality. The second trial is now in session, 90 years after Fitzgerald tried to start a conversation that no one wanted to have.
Hemingway noticed and responded to it in his memoir. The revelatory words have been there in plain sight all this time. How can we justify continuing to ignore them?
Monty J wrote: " In A Movable Feast, he recounts the time Fitzgerald, having, according to Scott, been criticized by Zelda as inadequate in the sexual equipment department, came to his office and asked him to inspect his penis and render an opinion about it's size. They even went to a museum to observe male sculptures for comparison. ..."Haha! I am going to read 'Moveable Feast', this sounds quite amusing.
Maybe he came out in Paris when they were hanging around with Gertrude Stein. Maybe no one in the U.S. knew about it. This would not surprise me in the least.
If U.S. high schools discover this, Gatsby will surely be banned. Or maybe not... maybe the book would lead to an actual enlightenment.
Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "We don't know Nick is gay- again, there was nothing in the book to support this except a drunken night of Nick not knowing what he did, if anything, due to a blackout."There is much..."
But where in Hemmingway's writing did he out him? Whether or not F Scott F was gay has no bearing on the novel of TGG. After three readings and two careful ones I don't see it, and it is not central to the story.
Karen wrote: "But where in Hemmingway's writing did he out him? "I just explained that in my previous post. The entire case is presented in the link I provided.
Homosexuality is not central; it is dealt with in subtext. Subtext requires us to step back and read between the lines. Authors deal with tabu topics using subtext to protect their careers and avoid censorship.
Homosexuality, even today, is a highly sensitive issue. The book would not have been published if Fitzgerald made it "central to the story." The signals are there only for people familiar with the lifestyle, astute enough to parse out the subtext and courageous enough to talk about it. Hemingway was all three.
But in A Movable Feast Hemingway was smart enough not to actually use the word "homosexual." Instead, he said "It [meaning Fitzgerald's homosexual behavior] was like a disease."
In "Hills Like White Elephants," Hemingway does something similar with the tabu topic of abortion. The characters never use the word, "abortion," leaving readers to parse out the meaning by "reading between the lines." Otherwise that story is virtually meaningless. The meaning of the story was conveyed entirely with subtext. Hemingway could still to this day deny that the story had anything to do with abortion. With Gatsby the reader has to do a lot of homework to see the homosexual subtext. A close-minded person will never get it.
Christine wrote: "If U.S. high schools discover this, Gatsby will surely be banned. Or maybe not... maybe the book would lead to an actual enlightenment."I think the word is getting out. I have two articles on the subject of Carraway's gayness on the Net and both are getting plenty of attention. The one on Academia.edu ranks on that web site's top 1%. The hits are from about 50 countries, concentrated in the English-speaking world and Western Europe. My similar piece on Wattpad.com has garnered 4,500 hits in 7 months.
I expect the book to be banned in many schools and libraries if teenagers start talking about homosexuality in conjunction with it. But I intend to keep airing the topic, hoping to enlighten.
Imagine an apoplectic parent who hasn't read a piece of literature since high school confronting an English teacher with an open copy of The Great Gatsby, gesturing toward the McKee passage, sputtering, "You can't teach this book! It's about queers!."
Or, a Baptist preacher waving that beautiful blue cover in front of a congregation, "This world is going to Hell in a handbasket! Git yer chillerns outta them public schools and either school'em at home or bring'em into our Christyen school."
It is time, with the US Supreme Court taking up gay marriage, for some light on the subject.
I think he is an interesting mixture of both. I always believed that Gatsby wasn't really in love with Daisy. He is just a dreamer, has creative imagination that helps him. Daisy fits the image he imagined, basically.
Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "But where in Hemmingway's writing did he out him? "I just explained that in my previous post. The entire case is presented in the link I provided.
Homosexuality is not central, it ..."
Nope- I said I read it carefully, as carefully as you did Monty- you don't mean to sound condescending but you were. And after being in NYC as much as I have been, and Provincetown Massachusetts, I assure you I am not "green" to the issue of homosexuality. Some of the gay people I work with do not see Nick as you do either. Yours is an opinion, doesn't mean it is fact.
I admit I did not read the Hemmingway's article.
Karen wrote: "you don't mean to sound condescending but you were"Apologies if I sounded that way. I wrote in a rush. Should have been more thoughtful.
"Some of the gay people I work with do not see Nick as you do either."
This neither unusual nor unexpected. Gays, especially in the work environment, often pander to a critical public by avoiding controversy. Few people, gay or otherwise, will take the time to analyze a piece of literature in detail.
"Yours is an opinion, doesn't mean it is fact."
Correct, but it would be disingenuous for me to express someone else's over my own.
"I admit I did not read the Hemmingway's article."
You don't have to read the whole thing. Just page 174. Or tell us what Hemingway meant by "It," other than what I am asserting it means--homosexual behavior.
Karen wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Sorry, Karen, but I respectfully disagree. I had not noted the homosexual aspect until the reviewers on GR pointed it out, but it is definitely there. He describes Tom B.s person w..."Yes, I agree that it is irrelevant to the story. I believe I pointed out my opinion that it was one of the many faults of the story. Monty J. however has come up with a plausible explanation as to why it is indeed relevant, if true.
Maybe that is what makes the novel truly great in that there are subtleties and ambiguities. I have resolved that Jay was never rich, never became so, the rent on the Egg mansion was paid for by Wolfsheim but SF is loathe to write that in, leaving it up for us to figure it out. I believe that is the problem for the film adaptations of the novel in that there simply is too much unsaid, ambiguous, and unresolved in the novel. Each director is able to spin the tale his own way, but still miss the mark.
Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "We don't know Nick is gay- again, there was nothing in the book to support this except a drunken night of Nick not knowing what he did, if anything, due to a blackout."There is much..."
The argument could cut both ways. Considering that Hemingway was a bit of a macho prick it's likely it was but a mere hypocritical outing with pretended sympathy. H. was highly disrespectful of Sherwood Anderson, his mentor, and never apologized. Faulkner did the same, felt bad about it and expressed his ¨mea culpa¨ to the master.
Yet on the other hand, an issue very much unexpressed in all the postings on GR, Hemingway, despite his machismo, was extremely compassionate, at least to the characters he created. When we read the short story, AN OLD MAN, or A WELL-LIT CAFE, poignant stories of old, broken down men, our hearts go out to them as does Hemingway's.(Or the old fisherman, for that matter).
Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "you don't mean to sound condescending but you were"Apologies if I sounded that way. I wrote in a rush. Should have been more thoughtful.
"Some of the gay people I work with do no..."
Apology accepted Monty. You are a gentleman. F. Scott could of course be gay, Hemmingway either meant that or the alcoholism. But I don't see it in the book regarding Nick. I think that in recent times people want to see gay characters in literature more than ever, and so would I- but in this classic novel, I just don't see its relevance.
Geoffrey wrote: "Karen wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Sorry, Karen, but I respectfully disagree. I had not noted the homosexual aspect until the reviewers on GR pointed it out, but it is definitely there. He describes To..."I think that was part of what was so great about TGG; a bit of ambiguity, and we can use our imagination- same with Faulkner. I have not read Hemmingway's novels, I don't like his short simple sentences but I will take your word for it that he writes compassionate characters.
Yes, I do agree with you about the ambiguity-but up to a point. I believe TGG to be overly ambiguous. Perhaps it is my problem, my perceptions that are not as Sharp as they should be, but I have constantly been troubled by the Novel´s structure, moral morass, and ambiguity.
Monty J wrote: " Imagine an apoplectic parent who hasn't read a piece of literature since high school confronting an English teacher with an open copy of The Great Gatsby, gesturing toward the McKee passage, sputtering, "You can't teach this book! It's about queers!." ..."Haha! Monty, I assure you that will DEFINITELY happen.
The ambiguous moment of Daisy's reckless driving certainly did work for me, regardless of other part parts of the novel which did not.How is it that she inadvertedly offed her rival for Tom's affections. Simply because the self-centered ditzy flake unconsciously wished Myrtle dead and by the sudden lurch of the steering wheel successfully caused it.
What most readers have neglected to investigate is the relationship between Nick and Jordan, and how it parallels our decision about Nick's latent homosexuality. He describes both Tom and Jay in glowing physical terms that reveal their appeal to him as a prospective lover, but when he discusses Jordan, it is more as a potential trophy wife. She cuts a fine figure, a presentable trophy to the public to see how successful he has become as an upwardly mobile bond salesman.
When he broke off his affair with the secretary at work, he cites animosity from her brother as the cause. A real man in grand passion and even less would persist in the relationship. The dalliance was hardly ardent or he wouldn't have ever broken it off.
Carrie wrote: "I'd say he's a modern hero, as he's far from idealised. He has flaws, he's greedy, vain, prone to ostentation, cocky. On the other hand, he's also a tragic hero concerning both his fate and the fac..."I agree fully I think he has flaws but everyone does the thing I don't agree about is he was greedy and vain he was always taking nick out and buying things for daisy and you cant say he was just doing it because Gatsby wanted something from him he was a genuine friend to nick well nick was the only true friend Gatsby had.
Geoffrey wrote: " She cuts a fine figure, a presentable trophy to the public to see how successful he has become as an upwardly mobile bond salesman."Actually, he describes her figure and posture as "small-breasted" and "like a young cadet," likening her to a young male in a military uniform. Not so much the classic image of a trophy wife. He also critiques her careless driving and her lack of character in cheating at golf. Nick didn't have the hots for Jordan, but she was good cover. Many gays lead dual lives for the sake of career, even to the extent of having families. My male boss, a partner at Price Waterhouse, was hitting on me and threw a jealous fit when I was friendly with a beautiful (female!) staff member, but he had a wife and kids.
"A real man in grand passion and even less would persist in the relationship. The dalliance was hardly ardent or he wouldn't have ever broken it off."
Agreed. He seemed to be going through the motions of inter-gender dating.
I am out of town now so I can´t quote the exact passage, Monty, but at another point in the novel Nick does mention something about her presenting a fine cut of a woman or something to that effect. But yes, he´s certainly strongly latent. whether he did the deed is another matter. And speaking about latents, check out the former governor of Arkansas now running for prez. He´s one if I ever did see one.
And yes, it is quite posible to be bisexual, enjoying one as much as the other. Take a look at DeGeneres´s former lover.
Geoffrey wrote: "I am out of town now so I can´t quote the exact passage, Monty, but at another point in the novel Nick does mention something about her presenting a fine cut of a woman or something to that effect...."While you're at it, look for the passage where Nick talks about having a notebook with young men's addresses. I'm having fits looking for it, but it's there somewhere.
These discussions have inspired me to re-read the book. I think this is my 3rd or 4th time. The writing never ceases to amaze me.
Wow, Monty, I completely missed that one. Was it perhaps in the beginning when he discusses his office romance.
Geoffrey wrote: "Wow, Monty, I completely missed that one. Was it perhaps in the beginning when he discusses his office romance."You're making me think. I've scoured the last 3 chapters, so it's not there. But it does happen during a lull in the plot, which means it could be after Nick gets Gatsby and Daisy together at his place and he gets busy at work and drifts away from Jordan.
Which makes me think more deeply about Nick's relationship with Jordan. She's not very feminine in demeanor nor appearance. She's a professional athlete. If she is a lesbian, they're a good match from the standpoint that each could function as cover for the other, giving the superficial appearance of being a straight couple--reciprocal camouflage.
Hell, does he even kiss her?
Geoffrey wrote: "I am out of town now so I can´t quote the exact passage, Monty, but at another point in the novel Nick does mention something about her presenting a fine cut of a woman or something to that effect...."P.79: It was dark now, and as we dipped under a little bridge I put my arm around Jordan's golden shoulder and drew her toward me and asked her to dinner. Suddenly I wasn't thinking of Gatsby and Daisy any more, but of this clean, hard, limited person, who dealt in universal scepticism, and who leaned back jauntily within the circle of my arm.
P.80 Unlike Gatsby and Tom Bucanan, I had no girl whose disembodied face floated among the cornices and blinding signs, and so I drew up the girl beside me, tightening my arms. Her wan scornful mouth smiled, and so I drew her up again closer, this time to my face.
That's about as romantic as it gets between Nick and Jordan.
No, he´s not particularly attracted to her personality, is he, considering that he is most appreciative of people whose outlook on life is the opposite?
I think Nick has a certain admiration for Jordan -- and he considers the idea of a relationship with her (although maybe he knows this would be a 'beard'). Their last meeting, after Nick has rejected Jordan, he says to her:p. 177 " 'I'm thirty,' I said. 'I'm five years too old to lie to myself and call it honor...' She didn't answer. Angry and half in love with her and tremendously sorry, I turned away."
The passage could be taken many ways. However, throughout the book, Nick definitely has a habit of rejecting young, beautiful and available women, at a time when marraige was certainly expected from someone of his age and background.
Monty J wrote: "While you're at it, look for the passage where Nick talks about having a notebook with young men's addresses. I'm having fits looking for it, but it's there somewhere...."Possibly this passage (as Nick realizes he is thirty years old):
p. 135 "Thirty -- the promise of a decade of lonliness, a thinning list of single men to know, a thinning briefcase of enthusiasm, thinning hair..."
He immediately then reconsiders the relationship with Jordan, so again, the passage can be interpreted in different ways.
Christine wrote: "Possibly this passage (as Nick realizes he is thirty years old):p. 135 'Thirty -- the promise of a decade of lonliness, a thinning list of single men to know, a thinning briefcase of enthusiasm, thinning hair...'"
This is it. Thank you.
Another passage that intrigued me, Nick's encounter on the train with the conductor:p. 115 "'Hot!" said the conductor to the familiar faces. 'Some weather! Hot... hot... hot! Is it hot enough for you? Is it hot? Is it...?' My commutation ticket came back to me with a dark stain from his hand. That anyone should care in this heat whose flushed lips he kissed, whose head made damp the pajama pocket over his heart!"
Like the Mr. McKee incident, it is subtle, but rather telling.
Christine wrote: "Another passage that intrigued me, Nick's encounter on the train with the conductor:p. 115 "'Hot!" said the conductor to the familiar faces. 'Some weather! Hot... hot... hot! Is it hot enough for..."
Yes, and the preceding paragraph feeds into this one as Nick picks up a woman's pocketbook, sometimes a symbol of female genitalia, commenting: "I picked it up with a weary bend and handed it back to her, holding it at arms's length and by the extreme tip of the corners to indicate that I had no designs upon it--but every one near by, including the woman, suspected me just the same."
There's no plot significance to this pocketbook sequence, so it's either atmosphere or character development or something else. Possibly more coded messaging to gays signifying Nick's disinterest in women?
Here's another odd segment at the end of chapter six, coming soon after Gatsby's declaration, "Can't repeat the past? ...Why of course you can!"
p.111 Through all he said, even through his appalling sentimentality, I was reminded of something--an elusive rhythm, a fragment of lost words, that I had heard somewhere a long time ago. For a moment a phrase tried to take shape in my mouth and my lips parted like a dumb man's, as though there was more struggling upon them than a wisp of startled air. Buy they made no sound, and what I had almost remembered was uncommunicable forever.
The end of a chapter is supposed to have special significance. It wraps up the chapter and transitions to the next. But this confounding segment, like the McKee bedroom scene, raises questions and eyebrows. It's out of form. More coded messaging?
This terminal paragraph echos one on the facing page: He [Gatsby] talked a lot about the past, and I gathered that he wanted to recover something, some idea of himself perhaps, that had gone into loving Daisy. His life had been confused and disordered since then, but if he could once return to a certain starting place and go over it all slowly, he could find out what that thing was...
Both paragraphs refer to some vague memory, one Gatsby's and the other Nick's own. What does Nick mean by "appalling sentimentality?" What about Gatsby's sentimentality is appalling? Is he appalled that Gatsby longs for Daisy instead of him?
Speculation that no one has even mentioned is to whether Jay himself was a member of the third sex. Remember, he was willed to inherit $25,000. That he was only a boatboy raises questions as to his innocence in relations with his benefactor. Jay was hellbent on becoming wealthy. How far did he go in fulfilling that dream? Considering that he was willing to ¨get into bed¨ with Wolfsheim's gang, how far did he go with the yachtsman? Is Nick responding to Jay's ever so subtle homosexuality in his overt homage to our tragic hero?Don't forget that amount of money then would be equivalent to about 1/2 to 1 million in today's currency.
Monty J wrote: " Nick picks up a woman's pocketbook, sometimes a symbol of female genitalia..."Interesting! Wow, I never would have gotten that, but very interesting symbolism.
The end of chapter six struck me as well, when Nick 'struggles' to say something, a phrase he can not utter, which becomes 'uncommunicable forever'. This could definitely be a silenced expression of his love for Gatsby.
Geoffrey wrote: "Speculation that no one has even mentioned is to whether Jay himself was a member of the third sex. Remember, he was willed to inherit $25,000. That he was only a boatboy raises questions as to his..."It occurred to me that something may have gone on between Dan Cody and Gatsby. An interesting description of 17 year old 'James Gatz' is included:
p. 98 "His brown, hardening body lived naturally through the half-fierce, half-lazy work of the bracing days. He knew women early and since they spoiled him, he became contemptuous of them, of young virgins because they were ignorant and of others because they were hysterical about things which in his overwhelming self absorbtion he took for granted."
SO -- Gatsby starts out as a hot young boy toy, 'contemptuous' of women... but then he becomes infatuated with Daisy. The possibilities of interpretation are endless!
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Some critics have claimed that Jay Gatsby's tragic flaw is his faith in the American Dream. I suggest his tragic flaw is his faith in Daisy. The real question, I suppose, is what Nick Carraway believes was Gatsby's tragic flaw—this is, after all, a frame narrative.