The Great Gatsby
discussion
Is Nick Carraway gay?
Luke wrote: Fitgerald was just dying to have everyone in bed with everyone else..."Alright, had Fitzgerald been writing in the 60s and 70s, rather than the 20s and 30s, which magazines do you think would have featured him?
Norman wrote: Finally, he tells the story of what happened during that eventful summer.Using his own part in it as a sub-plot and vehicle to move the main story along.
In "The Devils" by Dostoyevsky, the narrator claims to be someone who was close enough to the action and characters to be able to give readers a faithful account. Yet we never really learn who this person is or how they come to witness the events. This sets up a tension in the telling of the story which the writer never resolves for us.
Writers always face the problem of how on earth to tell a story, and whichever method they use there are always loose ends of one kind or another. Some writers, Becket is a good example, actually play with the story-telling conundrum. Fitzgerald, himself an Irishman of sorts, was not a master of form. With his work the surface is much more important, followed possibly by the imagery.
Actually this whole "Was Nick Caraway gay?" dispute can never be resolved, since Nick Caraway is a character in a novel. We can't haul him front of a Grand Jury or beat the truth out of him in a cellar. And even if we could do the worst of those things, would we ever get to the bottom of it?
Philip wrote: "Luke wrote: Fitgerald was just dying to have everyone in bed with everyone else..."Alright, had Fitzgerald been writing in the 60s and 70s, rather than the 20s and 30s, which magazines do you thi..."
and what about if he had been writing now? writers can get away with more now than they ever could, but does that mean they all want to? is it IMpossible to make a commentary on society today, without turning it into a "lewd sex romp"? having everyone in bed with everyone? i dont think its impossible at all. and dont tell me that things were wilder in the 1920's than they are today, cuz that is absolutely ridiculous.
do you really think that, given the chance, fitzgerald would have made "the great gatsby" like
"boardwalk empire"?
Ok. I got a couple REALLY important things to say so listen up:#1) this book would be great whether or not Nick was gay
#2) I assumed he was strait because he seemed to like Jordan (who I'm certain is strait)
#3) does it really matter???? I mean, sure, we 'tolerant' americans 'dont care' if someone's LGBTSQPA, but seriously, does it matter?! When I read this book, I never once thought that Nick was very important (other than narrator) so why do you all care?!?!?!
#4) I hate to flame my own country, but still, you 'tolerant' americans need to chill. it doesnt matter if Nick is gay or bi. he could be infatuaited with elephants for all I care! it doesnt matter!
Erika wrote: "Ok. I got a couple REALLY important things to say so listen up:#1) this book would be great whether or not Nick was gay
#2) I assumed he was strait because he seemed to like Jordan (who I'm cer..."
i think that very little of this debate has been rooted in homophobia, or intolerance. we care, because whether YOU like it or not, it DOES change the way you read things. and no that DOESNT have to be a bad thing. it simply gives you a better understanding of the novel, and the author.
Responses to above:#1) no one has been saying that the novel's greatness hinges on Nick's sexual orientation
#2) Nick could indeed be strait (sic) and Jordan could be a river Certainly both must be water signs...
#3) Of course it doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things, but isn't it fun to get caught up in the minutiae of literary analysis?
#4) Only an American would assume that all others interested in The Great Gatsby were Americans. Please note that non-Americans can be equally verbose and intolerant. As to that infatuation with elephants...now that would shed a whole new light on Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants." Was that story perhaps about a clandestine rendezvous between Scott and Ernest? Omg...!!
Norman wrote: "Responses to above:#1) sorry it seemed like it
#3) I think there are more important thingss to argue about so hopefully that was sarcasm...
#4) I didnt mean that only americans were interested in Gatsby, I just meant that I've noticed a trend in american's (including myself) that they're more cynical...and the whole elephants thing I just named a random animal
Erika wrote: "Ok. I got a couple REALLY important things to say so listen up:#1) this book would be great whether or not Nick was gay
#2) I assumed he was strait because he seemed to like Jordan (who I'm cer..."
I kind of agree with Erika here. Though the debate here may not appear to hinge on homophobia, it is kind of latent to the thought process that arrives at that conclusion. People assume a character is gay based on the scantest of evidence then immediately label a character because it seems to be the "in thing". It also seems like part of a larger trend where people are trying to revise history to make room for what they see as scandal - saying Shakespeare was gay, Queen Elizabeth was a man, Napoleon was bi - and all because they think it will stir up controversy. Assuming that it would is the very essence of homophobia, assuming people will react badly because they think the name of a famous person is being besmirched.
But of course the opposite is true as well. At least one person, I won't say who, went on a tantrum and condemned those who said it didn't matter if Nick was gay or they didn't care as "straight people trying to erase queer people from history". They then went on to politely tell us to frig off so people who did care could continue to debate. Ignoring the presumptive and hypocritical nature of this statement, it is clear that to some people, Nick's sexual orientation is also important for the sake of advancing some kind of cause.
Between that and the people who like to speculate about Nick's sexual orientation based on his friendship with Gatsby, his relationship with a "mannish woman", or who go the whole nine yards and say this Jordan is a lesbian for playing golf and Fitzgerald is himself gay because he was close with Hemingway, it seems like this entire forum here is pointless. From what I can tell, half the people are engaging in self-indulgent literary criticism or their personal bias while the rest of us are saying how baseless it is.
So from me, thanks Erika. Call it as it is!
Luke wrote: do you really think that, given the chance, fitzgerald would have made "the great gatsby" like "boardwalk empire"? I think we have to reverse the question and ask whether there could be "Boardwalk Empire" now if there hadn't been "Gatsby" then.
Which still leaves my question unanswered. Though, of course, Fitzgerald wrote for Esquire in the days before smut became acceptable/compulsory.
Erika wrote: you 'tolerant' americans need to chillPerhaps you do. Perhaps you don't.
Norman wrote: isn't it fun to get caught up in the minutiae of literary analysis?Right on, bro'!
Philip wrote: "Luke wrote: do you really think that, given the chance, fitzgerald would have made "the great gatsby" like "boardwalk empire"? I think we have to reverse the question and ask whether there could ..."
thats a great point....except for the fact that they are really not related to each other in any way.....
Luke wrote: except for the fact that they are really not related to each other in any wayThey share the Wolfsheim/Rothstein character. Also, there is a link with Fitzgerald in the Jimmy Darmody character, who studies literature at Princeton only to crash out on a drunk and join up.
Philip wrote: "Luke wrote: except for the fact that they are really not related to each other in any wayThey share the Wolfsheim/Rothstein character. Also, there is a link with Fitzgerald in the Jimmy Darmody c..."
arnold rothstein does not appear in boardwalk empire because of a character in the great gatsby. he appears in boardwalk empire because he was a gangster who actually existed.
does the tv show "rome" exist only because shakespeare wrote julius caesar? no. the show exists because it depicts a dramatization of actual events.
Luke wrote: does the tv show "rome" exist only because shakespeare wrote julius caesar?Before the poet/dramatists of the 16th and 17th centuries, ancient Rome was virtually unkown to the commoners of London. Only students of Latin ever read and translated Julius Caesar's dispatches. Shakespeare and his pals turned very dry and dead historical subjects into plays that even uneducated people could watch. The pennies they paid to stand in the Globe Theatre were the equivalent of the 10 dollars people currently pay Netfix to binge watch "Rome", "Spartacus" and what have you.
Shakespeare et al created the whole market, therefore the answer to this question is "yes". Without Elizabethan and Jacobean drama you just don't get Hollywood. Similarly, Fitzgerald had a large hand in creating the whole myth of the Roaring Twenties - of which Rothstein was a key figure.
Incidentally, in the episode of Rome where Caesar is assassinated, it was significant how - as Brutus stuck his knife in - the victim tried to speak but couldn't. Everyone watching was going, "Et tu, Brutus?" - which, of course, Shakespeare had him say.
Philip wrote: "Luke wrote: does the tv show "rome" exist only because shakespeare wrote julius caesar?Before the poet/dramatists of the 16th and 17th centuries, ancient Rome was virtually unkown to the commoner..."
WOW are you stretching. this response of yours is beyond ridiculous. i mean, this is a joke, right?
shakespeare the savior of world history! without shakespeare, we'd never know about julius caesar, one of the most pivotal people in history. i can only imagine how many world leaders have been lost to us, slipped thru the cracks of time, all because shakespeare failed to write a play about them....tragic indeed.
Luke wrote: this response of yours is beyond ridiculous. i mean, this is a joke, right?"Pubs didn't have quiz nights when Queen Bess was on the throne and many children didn't go to school. Most Londoners in 1600 were illiterate and the only reference to something like the Roman Empire would have come to them through the newly established Protestant churches, where the Gospels were being preached in English for the first time. Previously everything had been in Latin. The Globe and Rose theatres staged plays set in exotic locations such as Italy and France and all classes of people flocked to them out of sheer curiosity. OK, there was prostitution and other goings-on to attract a body, but your average Jack-the-lad could learn a thing or two as well as have a laugh or see a sword fight.
In point of fact, not all of Shakespeare's plays were successful in launching or relaunching the careers of historical figures. I mean, outside of the theatre, who's ever heard of Coriolanus or Titus Andronicus?
Also worth bearing in mind is the extent to which all fame is a construct of popular culture. Cultures that don't have media such as books, TV, troubadours, strolling players or the Internet don't have much in the way of fame to discuss over a jar before bedtime.
what are you talking about? seriously.whether shakespeare wrote julius caesar or not, we would still know who he is today. PERIOD. caesar is one of the most pivotal people in history. his assassination is one of the biggest scandals in the history of civilization. maybe shakespeare can be credited with enlightening a few uneducated londoners as to who caesar was, but that has nothing to do with why we know him now. furthermore, i will absolutely guarantee you that every EDUCATED person in london knew exactly who caesar was long BEFORE shakespeare. perhaps you have heard of "the gallic wars". a text that has been taught in practically every university and military academy since it was written thousands of years ago.
history is not a result of shakespeares play. shakespeares play is merely a biproduct of history, just as the tv show rome is a biproduct of history. just as boardwalk empire is a biproduct of history and not the great gatsby. trying to imply otherwise is absolutely absurd.
All this hyperbole..."one of the most pivotal people"..."one of the biggest in the history of civilization" coupled with the ridiculously pompous claim that "i will absolutely guarantee you that every EDUCATED person in london knew exactly who caesar was...". How does all this relate to the original topic of whether Nick Carraway was gay? Well...take a moment to consider the care with which the various people on this topic think, analyze, and write, and then draw your own conclusions.
Could some people here be a Fox News 'plant' or Sean Hannity in disguise?
Norman wrote: "All this hyperbole..."one of the most pivotal people"..."one of the biggest in the history of civilization" coupled with the ridiculously pompous claim that "i will absolutely guarantee you that ev..."i agree this topic has gone way ofcourse, and this was entirely not my intention, but my friend philip here is seriously trying to argue that there is no modern day interest in the life of julius caesar without william shakespeare, and furthermore, trying to say that the tv show boardwalk empire wouldnt have existed without the great gatsby. as if somehow, the great gatsby was the pinnacle of 20's gangster depiction in american culture.
having said that, i should not have allowed myself to get pulled into such a preposterous discussion. atleast in this argument concerning nick carraway, i know what the oppostion is trying to say. and, whether or not i agree with your evidence, atleast it is relevant. i apologize for my part in the detour. feel free to carry on with your propaganda, norm.
fyi, im a registered democrat, and despise fox news... if that jab happened to be aimed at me.
To be honest, I think Nick was in love with Gatsby like a brother figure. And his shy and reserved nature made him seem as if he was a homosexual. Though the end where he breaks things off with Jordan due to Gatsby's death leaves his intentions in a sort of gray area for me.
Is Nick Caraway Gay?or, put another way,
How many children had Lady Macbeth?
Want to compare Nick C and Lady M, eh? Perhaps both had "given suck"? (though it's highly unlikely that Nick would have "dashed [McKee's] brains out" afterwards....)And now that this discussion has reached rock bottom...I am outta here!
We're all out, I fink.
Well, if people are ducking out then it's time for me to chime in....I've read GG a whole bunch of times, but I confess I've never read it with any sort of queer theory or subversive gay interpretation in mind. I'm not opposed to the idea. It would add an interesting layer to the book.
I am, however, skeptical for a couple of reasons. I don't think Nick is in love with Gatsby. His reaction to Gatsby's death is not that of someone mourning someone they love in a romantic sense. Plus, he does not seem to have any sort of conflict with Daisy regarding her relationship with Gatsby.
The quotes from the book that appear to cast Nick as gay seem to be extracted from their context, so I'm not convinced they work as evidence. There are more functional ways of indicating sexuality than an elevator ride or waking up after a hangover.
That said, Nick is a problematic personality. He is a weak man on several levels. I remember attending a lecture on this book in which the speaker went off on a screed about Nick's lack of character, his passivity, etc. I can't help but wonder if FSF cast Nick in an effeminate way that is being picked up now, or if he actually did mean for Nick to be gay in order to justify his passivity in response to Gatsby's death.... That does, however, seem to cut both ways, though.
I don't know if I'm going to specifically bother with a reread of the book, paying attention to indications of Nick's sexuality, but if I do pick it up again in the immediate future I'm certain that will be unavoidable.
For a woman who has repeatedly broken up with her boy friends, recall that the parker woman tells nick, i throw them over, you´re the first to throw me over, it´s to her credit that she believes in "romantic love" to the extent that she arranges the two ill crossed lovers to meet again. Nick judges her badly and i find many of the posters taken in by his comments about her character, but is there anything so reprehensible about her behaviour¿ he judges the Wilson woman badly as well as he finds her crude and overtly sexual.nick is a creep in my estimation. By the end of the novel he decideds to leave the East in disgust with its immorality, but his own kettle is black. And it is his poor insight that leads him to believe not that there is a socio-economic disjoint but one of geographical differences. The issue is East vs. Midwest, not one between inherited wealth vs. professional class.
Geoffrey wrote: "For a woman who has repeatedly broken up with her boy friends, recall that the parker woman tells nick, i throw them over, you´re the first to throw me over, it´s to her credit that she believes in..."pure gold right there! i can agree with you!
I don't think Jordan arranges for Daisy to meet Gatsby again because of a belief in "romantic" love. She says that Daisy should have "something" in her life -- Gatsby is a plaything, a diversion, not a real person in Jordan's (and most likely Daisy's) eyes.Nick also comments on Jordan's cynicism, and her contemptuous view of the West Eggers. She hardly expects Daisy to run off with the mysterious Gatsby and abandon the social position as Tom Buchanan's wife.
Matthew wrote: "It seems like this forum has gone from suggesting whether Nick is gay to whether or not Fitzgerald is. I see nothing but supposition and innuendo based on some very creative readings of the text, n..."It seems to be the bias and arrogance of our times, give it 50 more years and no one will care once again.
Is Nick gay? The only real evidence shown to evidence this idea is the end of chapter two. However, you have to consider the reliability of the narrator; we know that Nick isn't completely reliable, due to his obsession with Gatsby. Some might say that this is because he is in love with Gatsby; although it is arguable that there must be some intense focus or sort of obsession on the protagonist of a novel - whether it be like or dislike. On the other hand, Nick maybe 'in love' with Gatsby but not in a sexual way. Gatsby is 'Great' because he represents the human capacity for 'romantic readiness' and hope and this is what attracts Nick. To consider that Nick is interested in Gatsby, merely through sexual attraction belittles Gatsby's role and character.When Jordan is described by Nick in the first chapter, she is described in feminine terms and as very similar to Daisy, 'languid', 'white' and insubstantial. You could even say because Daisy does not appear to be maternal at all, that she doesn't represent a normal feminine stereotype anymore than Jordan does.
If you look at the characters sexuality in this way, it could even be possible to look at a Freudian interpretation of Tom's intense machismo where it could be that he is denying his female side because he is denying his real sexual preferences, which seems rather ridiculous!
David wrote: "There is that scene where he is obsessed with the elevator lever. phallic symbol, much? He is also divorced without really explaining it, and he is pretty obsessed with Gatsby.But really there is..."
and he woke up in the same bed with some guy. though whether it was a dream during when he had gotten drunk is something i dont get
Of all the discussion threads hanging around the front page of Goodreads, this one is definitely the most annoying to repeatedly cast one's glance over...
This is really more a litany of defense positions between one set of people who prefer explication and those who prefer implication in a narrative. One could easily replace the topic header with "Was Nick Republican?" (although to do so would make little sense and achieve a useless enlightenment.) Sorry I even wandered into the discussion, for it grew tiresome after the first ten accusations.
Fawls13 wrote: "Matthew wrote: "It seems like this forum has gone from suggesting whether Nick is gay to whether or not Fitzgerald is. I see nothing but supposition and innuendo based on some very creative reading..."I was hoping we'd be there now. Unfortunately, people seem to think that being acceptable means the same thing as being fashionable. And in truth, they really aren't!
Charles wrote: "This is really more a litany of defense positions between one set of people who prefer explication and those who prefer implication in a narrative. One could easily replace the topic header with "W..."That's sounds like more of you claiming that your opinion in this is obvious and those who don't agree are failing to see it. Disagreement is not a shortcoming on a reader's part, or a preference for explicitness over subtlety. It's a difference of opinion, which given the nature of the evidence, seems perfectly valid to me.
And considering you helped get the ball rolling in this forum and made several accusations yourself, I think it unfair you call it "tiresome" now.
I never thought of it that way, but now come to think about it...
Charles wrote: "Come on, he's invited to someday come up for lunch (euphemism still in use today) then takes an elevator ride with the pale Mr. McKee who suggestively fondles a handle, then denies doing it, and Ni..."I don't know WHAT to think of that scene.. but it is EXACTLY the scene that has lead me to this discussion. What does it mean? One minute he's in the elevator. He's invited to come up for lunch. The next page,
"..I was standing beside his bed and he was sitting up between she sheets, clad in his underwear, with a great portfolio in his hands."
How do we get from the elevator... to standing beside the mans bed and he's in his undies?? Scholars.. please break this down for me?
Charles wrote: "Having taught this book for twenty years I feel I have some handle on this. Nick's sexual persuasion is confused, purposely, as is his reliability as a witness. The two go hand in hand. He neither ..."Just seeing this. Wow, thanks for the clarification.
David wrote: "There is that scene where he is obsessed with the elevator lever. phallic symbol, much? He is also divorced without really explaining it, and he is pretty obsessed with Gatsby."Quite true. 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."
What are we to make of this last scene except that it's an oblique reference of a tryst between Nick and McKee?
Furthermore, show me anywhere else in the novel where a scene is described so clumsily. Everywhere else in the novel Fitzgerald/Nick is if anything overly clear about what is happening. Is it a sudden case of temporary paralysis of the typewriter? Or is Fitzgerald/Nick being deliberately vague and providing dots for us to connect?
Charles wrote: "Come on, he's invited to someday come up for lunch (euphemism still in use today) then takes an elevator ride with the pale Mr. McKee who suggestively fondles a handle, then denies doing it, and Ni..."You've nailed it, Charles.
Charles wrote: "Had Nick attempted with either Jay or Jordan what he did with the stranger McKee, they'd have cut his balls off. And he knows it. This impotence of Nick's emotional quotient is completely the opposite of Jay's passion, yet somehow weirdly similar to his cousin Daisy's. It matters to the reader by not mattering to the characters. "Damn well put!
Hey, books belong to their readers. If you get a kick out of thinking Nick Carraway is gay, then so what? It does add an interesting implicit twist.Personally I think that Nick Carraway (care-away) has very relaxed sexual attitudes as seen with his night with Mr. McKee. ;)
I think Carraway being gay, which I readily accept that he was, would help to explain the narrator's excessively romantic descriptions of Gatsby. It often felt as though he had an unreasonably high regard for the man, whose actions never lived up to the narrator's billing. If he didn't have a crush on Gatsby, how else are we to interpret the hyperbole?
Monty J wrote: "David wrote: "There is that scene where he is obsessed with the elevator lever. phallic symbol, much? He is also divorced without really explaining it, and he is pretty obsessed with Gatsby."Quit..."
Any number of things. The speculation that this was a "tryst" is just that. The scene is scantly explained or detailed and to assume it was evidence of a gay affair seems like a stretch at best. Seeing as how there is absolutely no evidence of Nick being gay throughout the rest of the book, how could this "gay experience" be consistent with the overall point? Yes, I've heard people suggest Nick is "obsessed" with Gatsby, but admiration does not equal homoerotic entanglement.
And I can't believe you're agreeing with Charles, he epitomizes the case of an intellectual seeing the world entirely in terms of his own idiosyncrasies. Not to mention the way he treats people who don't see things the same way he does.
Monty J wrote: "I think Carraway being gay, which I readily accept that he was, would help to explain the narrator's excessively romantic descriptions of Gatsby. It often felt as though he had an unreasonably high..."nick admired gatsby's capacity for hope and ambition, this SHOULD be very obvious.
I have always found Nick to be gay. I am honestly surprised that anyone read the book and assumed or thought he was heterosexual.
Debbie wrote: "Charles wrote: "Come on, he's invited to someday come up for lunch (euphemism still in use today) then takes an elevator ride with the pale Mr. McKee who suggestively fondles a handle, then denies ..."It's a "fade to black", Debbie. You are meant to fill in the blank of what happened between them (the sex), as the scene fades then opens up on the next day. Sort of like how you don't see Scarlett and Rhett have sex, but the next morning Scarlett is cheerfully sitting up in bed acting like the cat who ate the canary and couldn't care less if anyone knows how delicious it was.
For related reading, I recommend Russo's The Celluloid Closet. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37...
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...
The novel's climactic moment could be interpreted as Nick's sudden realization (in Ch. 7) that it's his birthday. In the process of following Gatsby, Daisy, and Tom's 'affairs' Nick has almost forgotten who he is, but in recalling his birthday he makes an important shift back to concern for his own life and how he wants to live it. With his return to 'himself' he soon sees that Jordan, Tom, and Daisy are not the sort of people he wants to associate with: "I'd be damned if I'd go in; I'd had enough of all of them for one day and suddenly that included Jordan too." Even Gatsby suddenly seems more pitiable than anything else in his "watching over nothing" at the end of the chapter.
Having almost been caught up himself in the "foul dust" of Gatsby's dream, Nick determines to act decently and responsibly for the rest of the novel. His concern for Gatsby, both before and after his death, is an altruistic desire to help a lonely man. Contacting Wolfshiem, trying to call Daisy, seeking any relatives of Gatsby...all of these actions are done out of a sense of moral decency, and Nick's disgust with all the moral depravity that he has witnessed and been a part of in New York leads to his decision to go back to the mid-West. Finally, he tells the story of what happened during that eventful summer.