Daisy and Self Worth

I have been thinking a lot about self worth lately - and it is interesting to me the many ways that self worth can be measured. Today among women (almost entirely because of the media) a woman's self worth is measured by the size pants she is wearing. In the time period of Gatsby, it seems to be all about money (money is still important to the mass majority of people today, but I especially see it in Gatsby). Before Gatsby goes to war, in order to get Daisy, he lies about his family background and tells her that he is very wealthy so that she believes him to be "good enough" for her. Despite their love for one another, Daisy marries Tom. Essentially, Tom is a very rich man that can support Daisy's lifestyle.

Gatsby clearly wants her back and aims for wealth solely to get her back. Interestingly, the way that Gatsby views Daisy is in a fabulous way to be admired. He looks at her as if she is charming, refined, beautiful, and poised. When in reality we can all see that she is very shallow, sardonic, and erratic. She loves money more than any other thing in life, and it shows blatantly in the novel. I usually always sympathize with the woman character in almost every novel that I read, however I cannot bring myself to like Daisy.

I read somewhere that Daisy is a representation of Fitzgerald's own wife. Fitzgerald's wife must have been a lover of material things, and incapable of true love and compassion. Maybe Daisy's character turned out the way that she did because Fitzgerald only knows this type of woman, the type that is detached from anything that does not provide her with consistent luxury.

It is interesting to me that a woman that has her morals completely backwards could have enough self worth to view herself as good enough for the glamorous life she lives. Daisy's self worth does not measure up to the way that Gatsby views her and the result provides readers with some major disconnections.

A Short One...

I think that colors play a very specific and important part in The Great Gatsby. I believe that part of their main function is metaphorical of course. White usually stands for purity, which is very obvious and blue, I think stands for knowledge, wisdom or the realization of the way things really are. I also think that things in Gatsby are supposed to seem almost unreal or picturesque, which is where the vivid and constant color words come in. Certain scenes are intentionally very real and believable but like The House of Mirth some scenes seem to be set up almost as pictures or portraits.

Maybe it's because I've been reading lots of Jane Austen and Shakespeare that I noticed this, but Fitzgerald used a lot of color words in Gatsby, and comparatively, Austen and Shakespeare use barely any color words. The two that stood out to me the most were white and blue. The nouns paired with white seemed more realistic than those that were paired with blue.
Things that are white- palaces, mansion, windows, dresses, race, girlhood, railroad fence, dust, feet, sheep, complexion, spot, shirt front, flannels, etc.
Things that are blue- honey of the Mediterranean, gardens, uniform, coat, nose, limit of the sky, coupe, leaves, smoke, lawn , etc
In reading this novel, it seems that blue is associated with more abstract objects, whereas white is more tangible? That might be a bit of a stretch.
I also noticed the color green, specifically the green light at the end of the dock at Daisy’s house. It’s mentioned at the end of chapter one. Gatsby looks to this light and later in chapter 5, he mentions it again. This light possibly represents Gatsby’s confidence and/or optimism that he will win over Daisy?

The Great Gatsby is full of different types of imagery, one of which relates characters and scenes to the natural world. Gatsby's summer parties are held outside in gardens. Standing among lush, thriving plants, guests attend such an event in order to improve or solidify their social standing. At one such party, Nick makes a list of attendees, several referencing animals and flowers. Some names include Hornbeam, Blackbuck, Snell, Whitebait, Hammerhead, Beluga, Orchid, Catlip, and Klipspringer. Also at a party, Fitzgerald introduces a man that receives the name owl eyes. The audience finds this man in Gatsby's library, which makes sense because the owl typically symbolizes wisdom. Another character with an animal like name is Wolfshiem. It seems this man preys on the weak like a wolf would for the cuff buttons on his shirt are actual human molars. Even before Gatsby's death Fitzgerald paints a picture of the sky, leaves, a rose, grass, and trees. Also, on almost every page a reference to nature can be found. Statements like "roaring noon," "the dog days of summer," and "flipped up their noses like goats" brings readers to the outside world. And let's not forget the main character Daisy, named after a popular flower. Like a daisy, Tom's wife is fragile and needs all the support she can get, yet her beauty radiates like the sun. Even Myrtle's dog deserves consideration. Even though the animal exists for only a short period of time, the dog portrays such meaning in the power struggle Myrtle faces. On almost every page of The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald makes a human-animal connection or brings to the attention of the reader other vital aspects of the novel that directly relate to natural world.

Wow- it's been a while since anyone's blogged, and this is probably a dead subject in most people's minds, I really feel like Elliot is unique as a writer because he creates an intense collage of images that don't have a known linear flow about them. They seem random and strung together. They lack a perfect succession of time and place, but they do evoke strong emotions in the reader. I think this is where you can clearly see the connection to literature and art- there are those who love the abstract and feel that those who do not appreciate it do not understand it, and others who find it junk.

Eliot's Hypocrisy

One of the most amazing things about Eliot is ability to express his emotions through his poetry as we all discussed last class. However, in Eliot's Tradition and Individual Talent he states that great works do not come from personal emotion. I can't help but thinking that Eliot may be a hypocrite by saying this. When looking back over Eliot's works I can't help but think that all of these poems came from his own emotions. The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, for example, is so dark and depressing that I'm sure it was based off of Eliot's own sadness. The Waste Land also expresses the saddest images and thoughts, and these could not be so well expressed if Eliot himself had not been feeling this way. How many of us write from our own emotions? I know when I'm in a great mood I'll listen to happy music and write about how great life is, and when I am having a bad day I tend to write about sadness and listen to sad music. I think these poems came straight from Eliot's own heart at the time he wrote them.

Eliot and the Objective Correlative

I just came across a good summary of the connection between emotions and objects in modernist poetry. As I said in class, Eliot gave New Criticism some of its vocabulary and approach. The term objective correlative comes from Eliot, for example, and here Charles Bressler summarizes what this means in his introduction to literary theory and practice:

"According to Eliot, the only way of expressing emotions through art is by finding an objective correlative, or a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events, or reactions that can effectively awaken in the reader the emotional response the author desires without being a direct statement of that emotion. When the external facts are thus presented in the poem, they somehow coalesce (correlate), immediately evoking an emotion" (Bressler 58).

You might think of Marianne Moore's "The Fish," for example, in connection with this principle.