Nick’s poetic and detailed view into the world of Gatsby and the Buchanan’s provide the framework for an in depth analysis of these wealthy characitures, but what does Nick say about himself? He describes his family’s history in the beginning of the book as a sort of explanation for his involvement at the East Egg, and that he is in the bonds business. Yet, by the end of the book, Nick has seemed to erase any feelings of attachment to his peers in an attempt to distance himself from the whole hedonistic display. The only person that Nick still carries some feeling of affection towards turns out to be Gatsby; perhaps specifically because of the fact that Gatsby dies before Nick leaves for the Midwest. Had he not died, I’m unsure whether Nick wouldn’t have severed his ties with Gatsby like he did with Tom Buchanan. Gatsby’s obsession with Daisy and in turn the American Dream does not become his legacy until after he’s martyred, so except for whatever obligation Nick may feel he owes Gatsby, his reservations toward everyone else remain his chief action.
Does Nick turn out all right? It is perhaps a little pretentious to expect that Nick should shoulder the burden of Gatsby’s failure at capturing what apparently cannot be captured. Although Gatsby is transformed into an Everyman at the onset of his martyrdom, Nick benefits in the position of a kind of surrogate moral shareholder; his relation to Gatsby ends up becoming the focal catalyst to his critique of the American Dream and its failures. That green light does not hold the same mocking symbolism for Nick as it did for Gatsby, and Nick has the luxury of disassociation; Daisy is not his main love, she is his cousin- and Jordan’s disinterest in a more romantic relationship with him seems only to further turn Nick away from the East Egg lifestyle that he was so much a part of.
Nick’s story does not end in finality like Gatsby’s. He has a chance to become a bearer of wisdom; a warning of dreaming too big, perhaps, or overstepping a more realistic boundary. Regardless of what happened to Gatsby, his friend, Nick has buried him in his memory- in the beginning of the book, Nick claims his hindsight transforms Nick’s romantic naivety into a more realistic- perhaps cynical demand for “the world to be at attention.” His potential success stems not from an overzealous vision of how things should be, but a cautious reminder of how a self-imposed hubris can smash delusions of grandeur into dust. He moves back Midwest, a little wiser and perhaps a little more cynical, maybe a little poorer, but ultimately his future is perhaps a little smudged but altogether untarnished.
This conclusion leads one to believe that Nick will continue to fight against a current, but perhaps a milder one than Gatsby’s. And he will probably stay a little closer to shore, lest he venture too far and become lost at sea.
Beautiful post! Very thoughtful.
ReplyDeleteLoving the third paragraph- good flow.
ReplyDeleteTaylor
I like how you describe Nick's resolution as a middle ground rather than favoring an extreme. For me, to see Nick depart completely unfazed would be preposterous, but I could see him losing his mind over it. The story does kind of end with a tarnished view of Nick's future and I could definitely agree with you that he will have a more cautious approach through his endeavors. The book is like a huge warning for Nick to know what he's up against metaphorically and literally. He leaves with a realization of what he does not want to become and possibly a clue on how to be better. He learns that he is not invincible and he is the wiser for it.
ReplyDeleteI find it intriguing how you call Gatsby a martyr. I find Gatsby to be a self-centered degenerate who lies and bootlegs his way to the top. And to have that character be a allegory for the American dream is almost frightening. Is it possible to live honorably without upsetting your fellow man and still achieve the American dream? Or is being a schmuck and getting everything something to aspire to be? I find Gatsby to be more anti-heroic in that respect. He's aloof, shady, and rich, all qualities that are typically characteristic of a potential villain. If you could elaborate on how you find Gatsby a martyr, I would love to understand your opinion:)
Leevee: Please keep in mind that this blog post is coming from someone who was worn out when he wrote this, so my meaning may have been unclear. For that, my apologies. However, I’m glad that you were intrigued by my concept of martyrdom, and especially in relation to Gatsby, who I do deem as a villainous but very complex and intriguing character. Let me expound a little on my views in this matter, and maybe you will grasp another slant on this concept.
ReplyDeleteIn my worldview, perception is key, and a stereotype or bias is hidden subliminally in everything; including the word “martyr.” By definition, a martyr is:
1 : a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
2 : a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle
At least according to Miriam-Webster. Now, there are two parts to this definition that can be arbitrary, and in turn can be modified to fit different paradigms according to perspective. In the second definition, a person can sacrifice something of great value- but who is to say that that value cannot be an abstract term as opposed to a materialistic term; such as one’s morality? It is obviously clear in the instance of Gatsby that his ultimate goal was a certain level of material success- or perhaps a wide social acceptance from those in a certain socioeconomic perspective. This coupled with the fact that he was willing to sacrifice his “honor” or “morality” to obtain these goals make him an active participant in the concept of martyrdom….but to whom or for what? That is the second arbitrary definition of the word. Please allow me to take two examples of this arbitrariness in the form of something old and something new.
Let’s take the example of Harry S Truman. He was the president who signed off on dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which we all know thrust us both into the atomic age but also into an age of tense apprehension and talks of nuclear proliferation. In his defense, his argument was that he was saving the lives of troops on both sides- Japan would continue to make more attacks on the Pacific fleet and would not cease to attack fleets and invade islands in the Pacific and risk lives on both sides of the conflict. However, it is obvious that many hundreds, thousands of people lost their lives when the bombs were dropped on those two cities. Now the question I pose is this: what are the differences in American perceptions of Truman and the Japanese perceptions of our president? Could his actions be redeemable in any way? If not, is it fair to assume he martyred his morality for a certain result?
...cont'd....You also posed the question to me if it is possible to be honorable and still achieve the terms that Gatsby laid out for a successful life. My answer is, according to his terms, no. He is grasping for something I feel cannot be reached- the divide is too large, and for some economic theorists, impossible to cross. But we find people even in this day and age struggling to achieve this selfsame “American Dream” and losing sight of their families, their relationships, and their psychological faculties in the process. I equate Gatsby’s actions in a similar manner not just to these people, but also to the corporate CEO’s that we have heard about in the news recently. Although some may not have done illegal things technically, they have sacrificed their moralities in the maintenance of the rich-poor divide and the social inequality of the current United States. They are just as Macciavellian as Gatsby, but end up being called “sir” or “ma’am” out of a sense of obligation. The only difference is law here.
ReplyDeleteThe martyrdom I see Gatsby practicing is not necessarily thought up by him, but in the wake of the disillusioned, imperfect ideal of the American Dream, Gatsby is martyred as an effigy. He is a villain, a schmuck as you would call him, but he is also a shining example for us to reconsider our place in the great rat race and maybe the only good thing he had done is to exemplify the absurdities of the level of difference in the classes, and to what lengths one has to go to to simply scratch the surface of the “glass ceiling.”