The narrator in Gatsby is turning out to be an endless source of fascination for me. I was talking about the scene in chapter two were Tom punches Myrtle in the face, and it occured to me that McKee and Nick leave the scene of violence in such a manner that suggests they might be next. Mrs. Wilson recieves the blow because she defiantly refuses to obey Tom's demand that she not speak his wife's name. She has overstepped the bounds of mistress (as defined by Tom), and stepped out of her role of compliant prostitute -- I think this role is played up and indicated by all the shopping she does before they go to the apartment -- into one of rival wife, in order to give her and Tom's relationship validity. Tom's violent reaction can be attributed to his state of inebriation, but since we have already encountered Tom's brutality with the presentation of Daisy's broken finger the message is one of both a brutal master and an irresponsible alcoholic. I'm also interested in the detail of these attacks. Tom only breaks Daisy's finger, while he punches Mrs. Wilson in the face, breaking her nose. It is like Mrs. Wilson was sticking her nose in Tom's business and perhaps Daisy was pointing an accusing finger at him. Whatever the case, Tom squashes these domestic rebellions with unethical violence, and neither Nick or McKee intervenes at all.
Neither Nick nor McKee intervene, console or defend Mrs. Wilson, or do anything that signifies they are apalled or concerend about what has happened. They simply are aroused from a stupor, and when they have adequately assessed the situation, they head for the door. I was thinking today that they do this, not because they are upset, but because they feel that they both rely on personas that could easily place them next on Tom's list. They leave together, slinking away from a volitile situation, and the possibility of having to confront Tom disappears. It seems that even their presence could cause them to be at the end of Tom's fist.
The tone of Nick's actions is that he needs a strong masculine presence around dictate his actions. Nick seems to sympathize with his cousin in her sorrow over Tom's affair, but his assesment of women in most other chapters is that of disdain, or apathy, or, even when it seems like he is really attracted to one, fear and weakness -- as is the case in chapter four when he is pained by the idea that Gatsby might have an eye on Jordan. This sort of blissfull surrender to a strong man's will would merely imply submissive compliance -- if we were talking about a dog. But we are talking about a human, with what I would hope are inately human desires and wants, so his consistent submission to a male seems to reflect a deeper unsung desire. The part of the novel that really drives this home for me are Carraway's remarks that he wishes he could have "unknown" affairs with the wealthy women of fifth avenue. This concept is so confusing...why unknown? Why not unknown? I mean, if he wanted to, couldn't he have an affair with anyone willing? I think it really means unknown to himself. The concept of having a valid affair with a woman is not appealing as knowledge. The fiance that he left back in the midwest has become knowledge, and we know how Carraway has danced around that one. The affair with the woman in New Jersey became knowledge to her brother, and with some unpleasant looks it was stopped. The only hook up that hasn't become knowledge is the one with McKee. It hasn't even become clear to Nick.
Alright, I know that its only chapter four and that I haven't read it all yet, but I have the feeling that Fitzgerald is asking us to discover what Nick doesn't know, or doesn't want to accept, about himself -- and I don't think its just that he wants to rich. BTW -- I searched for anything about Carraway and his sexuality on JSTOR and Gale and EBSCO, and guess what? Nothing. This novel apparently needs some dusting off.
2 comments:
I read all of your blogs on this novel (very impressive) and now I'm thinking. I think this novel is absolutely about Identity and Masking as we discussed; the fact that Nick CONSTANTLY projects dishonesty, moral culpability, inauthenticity onto EVERYBODY else in this novel I think demonstrates his own deep uneasiness with himself. I think Fitzgerald is analyzing, in some way, the fissures in the self and the strategies employed by individuals to protect that self from real, perhaps too intense, self knowledge. In most of his novels, there is the threat or actual existence of insanity; of course, it is the WOMEN who are usually insane. In GG, Nick spends an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out if Gatsby is "real." The whole point of Gatsby, of course, is that he ISN'T real in the sense of "a self who was born and grew...." He is a self-made construct. He portrays an identity that he has constructed out of a mishmash of ideals and stories and romantic longings. But, as Nick continues to juxtapose Gatsby (and himself) against the "bad Buchanaans," it becomes clear that in another way, Gatsby is at least as real as everyone else -- primarily because everyone ELSE is masking who they are. The fact that Nick hightails it back to the Midwest suggests to me that he CANNOT accept the knowledge (of himself, of others) that his experiences have threated to "expose" him to.
The homosexual desire running rampant through this novel is FASCINATING and I don't think anyone has written on it (but I haven't looked it up recently). All that masculine brutality described so intimately by Nick ABOUT Tom. All that obsessive consideration of Gatsby. Nick's failure to connect or to be honest about women (unknown women? -- not a stretch to say that it isn't women he wants at all-- it absolutely signals an undercurrent of frustrated desire that is "coloring" the perception of everything here. The fact that NICK becomes the awkward catalyst for Daisy and Gatsby's reunion (union?) reminds of Eve Sedgewick's theories (probably began with someone else, can't remember) about homosocial desire and the way the sexual aspects of it may get mediated through a third female part.
Hmmmm.
We must talk.
Well, if it is true that we can only see ourselves (and maybe others) through others -- a third party would be ideal -- and a third party in this case would ideally be woman so that the desire can be expressed and identified in terms acceptable to society that has taught them how to identify their selves. And what f Daisy's drunk recrimination with the pearls in the trash? I think this shows that she too might be in conflict with her own desire. She gets out of line again when she sees the shirts -- it seems that she goes into chaos when she is presented with the overabundance of expensive goods that SHOULD move her to love -- she however came closer to the truth when she expressed her hurt at Nick's absence from her wedding. She might have a desire for Nick (and his middle class lifestyle) that makes her an outcast as well. It's quite mysterious.
Post a Comment