Marks Off for Marxism

"You are what you own: a Marxist reading of the Great Gatsby" by Lois Tyson looks to put forward the idea that the entire book, instead of glorifying the capitalism it so glorifies, is actually an assault on that same capitalism. The idea that in the book " the American dream not only fails to fulfill its promisebut also contributes to the decay of personal values"(Tyson 69) can certainly be seen, as Gatsby and Tom Buchanan certainly lose their morality with the increase of their wealth. And the idea that Gatsby wants Daisy not for her use value, but for her sign-exchange value. And Tyson talks about how the only people not "well off" were George and Myrtle Wilson. Tyson calls it "The Great Gatsby's most obvious flaw"(Tyson 75). But overall, this theory fails to represent an idea that it IS actually a theory. The essay keeps mentioning parts of the novel that are what it calls "flaws", but it never explains how they are "flawed". Tyson also says that "Nick believes in Gatsby because he wants to believe that Gatsby's dream can come true for himself"(
Tyson 77), but Nick keeps talking about how he despises what Gatsby is in the novel. Tyson continues to talk, but most of it is just commenting on how much the novel actually puts down Capitalism. SO WHAT? All of the other theories actually tell you a so what, whereas Marxist doesn't.

The Great Gatsby: Capitalist, or Marxist?

Aidan Villani-Holland

Christie Beveridge

Language Arts 5

11/14/12

The Great Gatsby: Capitalist, or Marxist?

            This section of Lois Tyson’s Critical Theory Today has confused me not because of the words and concepts, but because it’s so different from the previous couple lenses. I do not think that any critical lens, least of all so far Marxist theory is substantial enough to analyze an entire book without making things up, I actually agreed with the vast majority of what Tyson said. This is likely because The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald lends itself well to Marxist theory because of the importance of money to the story.

            First, Tyson says that the text portrays capitalism in a bad light because of Tom Buchanan. Tyson writes, “The wealthiest man in the novel, Tom relates to the world only through his money: for him, all things and all people are commodities,” (70). I completely agree with this statement, as it is fairly clear. Throughout the entire novel, Tom is loud, controlling, and is always physically moving people around. These behaviors clearly exist to show his dominance that comes from his money.

            Tyson then makes a similar claim about Daisy. She then writes, “And certainly, Daisy is capable, like Tom of espousing an idea for the status she thinks confers on her,” (71). Again, this though is fairly obviously true. At the beginning of the book, Daisy seems like a nice young woman who is just a little dumb, however, as the story continues, it’s clear she’s shallow, and only concerned about socio-economic status. Thus, she gives up on Gatsby the minute she finds out he’s not part of her class.

            Finally though, Tyson also says that the text has a flaw in that it also glorifies the wealthy and puts down the less wealthy, when she writes, “-Is a powerfully chilling image of the life led by those who do not have the socioeconomic resources of the Buchanans,” (72). This passage is referring to the dark, description of, “the valley of ashes,” which is where the Wilsons live.  The Wilsons, like the other people in the awful valley of ashes, are not as wealthy as people like Tom, daisy, and Gatsby. While this discrepancy in opinion seems not to make sense at first, I think that since Nick is the narrator, I think this could all be exaggerated in his perception as his opinions change.

            Though they didn’t fit together, Lois Tyson’s ideas in this section were sell supported and made sense. They were also surprisingly non-condescending. All together, I would say that I agree with her on this one.

            Do you think only one of these sides is true?

            Which one did Fitzgerald mean to imply (if only one)?

            Did Fitzgerald mean to imply anything about money?

            Does it matter if he did or not?

Lois Tyson- Champ at Complicating ideas behind Simple happenings

It is my believe that Lois Tyson’s writing style suffers from on major blemish- she convolutes simple ideas.  This shines particularly bright in her Marxist reading of The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald.  It goes without saying that Marxism is a particularly difficult lens to master, and to teach it is even more difficult, but some of the concepts and examples which she presents are so simple, but presented in such difficult ways that the reading makes no sense.  It is my goal to critique her in a helpful manner, and hopefully decode the literary detritus which we sometimes read. 
    A prime example of her overcomplicated ideas is Tom’s interest in Myrtle- or lower class women.  While Tyson could have said something along the lines of, “Tom was interested in women of a lower class than himself because he was almost guaranteed to be fawned over,” she states that, “Tom’s consistent choice of lower-class women can also be understood in terms of his commodified view of human interaction: he “markets” his socioeconomic status where it will put him at the greatest advantage- among women who are most desperate for a most easily awed by what he has to sell.” (Pg. 70) While this interpretation or wording certainly sounds better, and reads better for those willing to digest the information, it seem to me that Tyson is working hard to apply Marxist vocabulary to everyday phenomena.  Maybe this is what Marxism is- the application of “deep” theories on occurrences we already have labeled in lay men's terms, but if this is the case, I would prefer Tyson to acknowledge this, instead of ignoring the simplicity and continuing on.  Granted- I agree with her point, just once I get past the construed and buried nature of it. 
    While still obscured by Critical Theory jargon, I believe Tyson has a much stronger point by drawing similarities between Nick, Gatsby and Communism.  It is illustrated throughout The Great Gatsby that Nick and Tom are different, and that somehow, Nick and Gatsby’s backgrounds are somewhat similar.  As talked about in the first section, Tom is basically the god of Capitalism- but later in the chapter, we begin to see how Nick and Gatsby are “the people” of communism.  For simplicity sake though, let us only look at early on Gatsby, because as he ages, and gains wealthy, it becomes incredibly difficult to draw similarities between his excessive wealth and communism.  Tyson notes that Nick, “At the age of thirty, and still being financed by his father...” (P. 77) What I extrapolated from this, was that Nick was a symbolization of those being supported by the government, who would later give back to the government, and his “community.”  This is the communist way!  I wish that Tyson had made a stronger link between these two parts, but I believe that this was an example of her finding a valuable nugget in the text that was actually, “legitimate,” and not a complete “pull.” 
    Finally, I should mention a point I thoroughly disagreed with.  The Great Gatsby’s  closing line, “ Beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past” (Pg. 78) is known for being deep, and seeming existential, so it would only make sense that Tyson would try and bring sense to the line with Marxism.  Unfortunately- it seemed fluffy.  Tyson claims that this symbolizes how capitalism is, “Bearing us ceaselessly back under capitalism’s spell.”  Say what?  Capitalism is the current, which we are beating on against?  Sure, I guess this does makes sense, but there is no way this is how Fitzgerald intended it.  I also have to wonder if I’m not misunderstanding what Tyson is trying to say, bringing me to my final point.  Write clearly and concisely.  If Tyson did this, her readings would be far more “accessible” and be easier to interpret, and then make it better to build off of.  Tyson, I beg of you, write sentences which do not require rereading over three times. 
    While I believe Tyson has some excellent points, I strongly believe she is often trying to contrive the text to fit the Marxist lens, as opposed to trying to view the text through a pre determined lens.  It does not always seem like she really believes what she is saying, making all points feel somewhat shaky.

Do you believe connections were created between Nick and communism on purpose in The Great Gatsby? How do you think Fitzgerald would respond to a Marxist reading of his book?  Would he agree?  Would this lens be the one he would appreciate most, or do you believe he would want to read the book through a different one?  If so, which?  Would he care? 

Lois Tyson: Enemy of Senator McCarthy

The Great Gatsby touches on many issues of economic inequality and socioeconomic status. The juxtaposition between the valley of ashes and the Eggs, as well as the differences between East and West Egg; the distinction between the characteristics of old money, new money and no money; and the depiction of Gatsby's rise to wealth from his humble origins. Lois Tyson's Marxist reading of the book examines these and other elements, both for how they support and contradict Marxist theory. While the substance her points are made of is valid, I think that the ways in which she says it runs counter to Marxism are inconsistent and overblown, as are some of the ways in which she thinks it is a pro-Marxist work. Rather than focus on my thoughts on Marxism itself, I'll try to keep to looking at her reading.

I think the point Tyson makes that I agree with the most is on Tom Buchanan's extensive commodification of everything around him. Tyson writes, "Tom relates to the world only through his money: for him, all things and all people are commodities... Tom uses his money and social rank to 'purchase' Myrtle Wilson and the numerous other working-class women with whom he has affairs" (70). That point could easily be expanded upon by examining the abusive and one-sided relationship that Marx says exists between the bourgeousie and proletariat. Further, it is a prime example of what Marx called the "community of women," wherein women--theirs, their peer's or their worker's--are passed around and treated as property among the bourgeousie. I also appreciated the look at the effects of capitalism beyond the obvious within the novel--how wealth hurts the rich similarly to how poverty hurts the poor. Finally, I appreciated her examination of the American Dream. Pointing to Fitzgerald's description of the almost apocalyptic valley of ashes, she writes that "the only way out of capitalism's 'dumping ground,' as George and Myrtle both finally learn, is in a coffin" (73). But Tyson says that, to a Marxist critic, the book is not communist enough.

As a Marxist critic, Tyson begins, well, criticizing the novel. While there are minor points she made earlier that I disagree with, the bulk of my problem with her reading comes from this section. "The Great Gatsby's most obvious flaw, from a Marxist perspective, is its unsympathetic rendering of George and Myrtle Wilson, the novel's representatives of the lower class" (75). Soon after, she writes that "the novel is also flawed, from a Marxist perspective, by Nick's romanticization of Gatsby" (76). While describing Marxist theory, she describes different types of ideologies, saying "[u]ndesirable ideologies promote repressive political agendas" (56). This seems, at bottom, an attempt to square the circle; criticizing at the same time the idealization of one character and the lack of idealization of others is, if nothing else, hypocritical in and of itself. But when her definition of undesirable ideologies is applied, it becomes apparent that her ideology (or at least the one she adopts for this reading) is repressive. In actual communist regimes, the path toward acceptance of government as pure and holy, opposing the Western, imperialist, capitalist enemies of the people is well worn. Surely, I don't need to go into what happens when that happens, especially when it leads to criticism and even censorship of potentially dissenting voices. Tyson also makes the dubious claim that Fitzgerald's "lush" descriptions of the manses of the wealthy are pro-capitalist. On its face, this may seem accurate, but there are two important points she does not discuss. First; a description of reality is not an ideology. The rich patently do live in extremely luxurious circumstances, and the language in which it is described does not change that. Second; Fitzgerald's naturally poetic and eloquent descriptions do not simply make such luxury more desirable, but add to the juxtaposition with his equally rich descriptions of poverty. As such, these descriptions make the injustices of capitalism more clear. A book describing the luxury of the rich is not inherently pro-capitalist, especially if those luxuries come off more as hollow excess, decaying from within.

There are other, smaller points I agree or disagree with--I like her examination of Daisy's commodification of life, I disagree with her seeing the Buchanans' possessions as having use-value while Gatsby's do not (they do for other people, and his striving towards a specific goal is still a use, not merely sign-exchange value)--but those are the major points which particularly stuck out for me. Ultimately, I think that a stronger case can be made for The Great Gatsby as a pro-Marxist text, though the romanticization of Gatsby and his achievement of some part of the American Dream are a counter to that strong communist vein.

Now, for my readers and admirers: Is the portrayal of Gatsby inherently pro- or anti-capitalist? Are the flaws of the rich and poor, as Fox News might say, "Fair and Balanced?"

Marxist Reading Response

        Lois Tyson's marxist reading of the Great Gatsby was severely lacking in an actual proven point. Throughout her reading, her only point seemed to be that there is money in the Great Gatsby. Woah. First, marxist theory does not seem to be the strongest of theories; it can't carry its own weight. It needs the help of other theories, such as psychoanalytic theory. Tyson shows this right off the bat when she writes, "Rather it is a psychological attitude that has invaded every domain of our existence." (70) Obviously, marxist theory is one of the weaker theories since it needs to draw from others in order to prove a point. Secondly, Tyson cannot seem to prove that Fitzgerald was making either side attractive. Tyson points out, "...the unflattering portraits of George and Myrtle Wilson deflect our attention from their victimization by the capitalist system..." (75) First, Lois Tyson talks about how Fitzgerald makes Tom and Daisy, the higher class society, look bad, and then she talks about how he makes the lower class look bad. Obviously, Fitzgerald was not writing the Great Gatsby to glorify either side since he portrays both spectrums equally unattractively. Finally, Tyson blames the novel for the holes in her theory rather than the theory itself. Tyson shifts the weakness of the theory onto the book by writing, "...the novel is also flawed, from a Marxist perspective..." (76) If you can't prove a point with a book, it isn't the novel or author's fault, you clearly are not using the right theory. Especially compared to her stronger readings, Tyson's Marxist analysis of the Great Gatsby was disappointing and flawed.

Tyson's other theories are so strongly argued, why was she so weak in this department?
What was the point of the essay?

Response to Lois Tyson's Marxist Reading

For the first time, I have agreed with one of Lois Tyson’s analyses. She says that in The Great Gatsby you are what you own and that is 100% true. This adage applies best when looking at Gatsby. Lois Tyson eloquently reiterates that, “Gatsby has risen from extreme poverty to extreme wealth in a very few years.” (73) Gatsby having once been poor and careless, was now feeling like he needed to bend over backwards to impress the  stereotypical high-society bourgeoisie and eventually become one of them in order to win the heart of his lover. To that superficial high class, you are what you own, nothing more. As does Marxism, The Great Gatsby does a great job of separating society into two parts, one of which is clearly viewed as “better” than the other. Tyson proves it with examples, “The Great Gatsby’s representation of American culture, then, reveals, the debilitating effects of capitalism on socioeconomic “winners” such as Tom, Daisy, and Gatsby, as well as on “losers” such as George and Myrtle.” (75) Finally, Nick is envious of Gatsby for his wealth, and all that he has, through the Marxist lens, he doesn’t see how the bourgeoisie can ask for more than they’ve got. Gatsby is incomplete, unlike the stereotypical bourgeois. For Nick, Lois Tyson diagnoses that, “He is in collusion with Gatsby’s desire, and his narrative can lead readers into collusion with that desire as well.” (77) Do you, reader, feel your desires influenced by those of Gatsby because of his position? Do you have sympathy for Nick in that regard?

What's Love Got to Do with It: a response to Lois Tyson's psychoanalytic reading of The Great Gatsby

Grace Seeley

Christie Beveridge

Critical Theory

11/4/12

            In my reading of Lois Tyson’s psychoanalytical interpretation of The Great Gatsby, I found that she made many valid and well-supported points. Although she never gets to the bottom of the characters’ deeply rooted psychological issues, Tyson’s analysis is still valid. However, it would be almost to fully explain any one character’s core issues since there is no information given about the childhood of anyone other than Gatsby. Considering the history about the characters given in Gatsby, it is the deepest interpretation that can be supported from the text. Tyson’s analysis of Daisy, Gatsby, and Tom are spot on.

            Daisy’s existence in a loveless marriage proves her fear of intimacy. She chooses to marry Tom over Gatsby, the man that she thinks she is in love with. At the time, she believed them both to be in near equal economic standing, and yet she did not choose the man whose departure left her with such a dramatic response: “she cried and cried…we got her into a cold bath…she wouldn’t let go of Gatsby’s letter…and she only let Jordan leave it in the soap dish when she saw that it was coming to pieces like snow.” The only fathomable reason for this is, as Tyson explained is “she married Tom to keep herself from loving Gatsby, to whom she had gotten too attached for her own comfort.” Tyson believes that Daisy’s love for Gatsby stems from one place in particular: “Whatever she feels for Gatsby requires the reinforcement of the same social status Tom provides. Tyson’s claim about Daisy’s fear of intimacy is further supported by the lack of emotional relationships in her life. Her marriage is loveless, her friendship with Jordan is shallow, her love for her child is an act, her friendship with Nick is based around Gatsby, and her romantic relationship with Gatsby could be best described as a schoolyard crush. Tyson’s belief that Daisy has a fear of intimacy is well documented and well supported.

            Tom’s fear of intimacy is perhaps the easiest to prove, in large part due to his philandering ways. We find out in the scene where Nick first meets Tom that he is having an affair with another woman. In fact, Tom has been having affairs since a week after the honeymoon, perhaps even earlier. In Gatsby, Jordan explains: “I saw Tom and Daisy in Santa Barbara when they came back from their honeymoon…A week after I left Tom ran into a wagon on the Ventura road one night…the girl who was with him got into the papers too because her arm was broken—she was one of the chambermaids in the Santa Barbara Hotel.” The text alone doesn’t prove Tom’s fear of intimacy, but Tyson’s big picture explanation does: “Dividing his interest, time, and energy between two women protects him from real intimacy with either…Daisy represents social superiority…Tom’s possession of Myrtle Wilson…reinforces Tom’s sense of his own masculine power.” Although this alludes to castration anxiety, there is not enough evidence within Gatsby to prove this. Moreover, Tom’s affairs are more of an attempt to exert his power by possessing people, since all material things are easily accessible to him. Therefore, Tom’s affairs can be explained by his fear of intimacy.

            Tyson’s examination of The Great Gatsby’s characters is the deepest that you could synthesize based on the short text that is Gatsby and the lack of depth in the cast. Her work is logical, well supported, and systematic in its approach. I fully agree with Tyson’s analysis, despite it ruining The Great Gatsby for me as a love story.