Ellis Govoni
Christie Bevredge
Critical Theory
November 13, 2012
In
Louis Tyson’s Marxist reading of the
Great Gatsby, she argues many points that I agree with, however I still
have problems with the argument of the label of commodification that is used on
Gatsby. In this argument, Louis claims, “…he commodifies his world just as they
do (The Buchanans’). In fact, one might argue that he commodifies it more”.
Daisy is said to be a symbol or idea, of Gatsby’s commodification. In the
reading, Tyson says, “Possession of daisy would give Gatsby what he really
wants: a permanent sign that he
belongs to her socioeconomic class, to the same bright spotless airy carefree
world of the very rich that daisy embodied for him when they first met.” This
seems to be an over simplification of Gatsby’s feelings for Daisy because it
seems not to take into account, that Gatsby loves Daisy and she is not just a
“sign-exchange value”, as Tyson’s Marxist interpretation would imply. For
example, we can see this through the many actions that Gatsby does through out
the novel… “Gatsby occupies in his magnificently furnished mansion is his
simple bedroom and during the only time we see him there his purpose is to show
it to Daisy.” Undoubtedly Gatsby is caught up in the economic climb of his
society, but if he were truly commodifying Daisy, he would not have taken the
fall for Daisy when she hit Myrtle because there is no logical economic gain to
be taken advantage of by going to prison. Regardless of the value of Marxist
theory, it seems to be a cold and almost robotic way of looking at literature.
No comments:
Post a Comment