Homosexual motifs in books?

[Uroboros1989]

I'm looking for homosexual motifs in books, one very attractive book that i can recommend is "Sputnik Sweetheart" by Haruki Murakami. This author is really amazing.
By the way we can find something in W.Whitman's poems.

[kiki1982]

There is some in Oscar Wilde's only novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, I believe.

It has been argued that there is a homosexual motif in Brideshead Revisited (Evelyn, Waugh), although not everyone agrees on that.

Mrs Dalloway (Virginia Woolf) seems to have some slightly lesbian content in it. Although that might be overly exaggerated feminist 20s ideas... But I believe some lesbian stuff might have been argued by critics.

[Uroboros1989]

I've just strated reading "Mrs Dalloway" and i will assess it after reading don't you think so that lesbian relationshops in literature are regarded with tongue in cheek, and there is no co clear i believe. However, when there is gay relationships it's very recognizable. But such a strange situation is even in everyday life i think. As regards lesbianism in literature, I've read drama "Saint Joan" by Bernard Shaw, i think that there are slightly references to lesbian relationships, regardless of Joan of Arc's pious nature.

[blp]

Brideshead Revisited. Even if it's ambiguous whether the two protagonists have a homosexual relationship (I think they do and that Sebastian is gay while Charles is bi-sexual), they have an openly gay friend.

Anything by Alan Hollinghurst.

Naked Lunch and other William Burroughs books. Be warned: these are very graphic indeed in their depictions of homosexual sex. Dennis Cooper's books are too.

EM Forster's Maurice.

Edmund White: The Beautiful Room is Empty and A Boy's Own Story.

[OrphanPip]

Duh, gay lit is overflowing with homosexual motifs.

[blp]

Duh, gay lit is overflowing with homosexual motifs.

My name's blp, actually, OrphanPip – as it says very clearly above my avatar. This Duh fellow is some ghost you've dreamed up.

But perhaps the answer to the thread starter's question isn't quite so obvious. What do you mean by gay motifs, Uroborus? Something distinct from gay themes, gay subject matter etc.?

[kelby_lake]

Do you mean homosexual undertones? Quite a bit in Shakespeare's sonnets.

Possibly Brideshead Revisited (I don't believe that Charles is gay or bi; it's more like experimenting in his college years. Sebastian probably is, and thus regresses to childhood to hide from it)

[stlukesguild]

Thomas Mann- Death in Venice
Virginia Woolf- Orlando

[JBI]

I'm weary of the term "homosexual motif", "homoerotic" works better in my eyes, but anyway, for recommendations Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, the works of King David in the Psalms, and Michelangelo's Sonnets. Of course, much is speculated, and much is read too deeply, incorrectly, or questionably. But you could probably find homoerotic gesturing in most literature if you look for it.

[hellsapoppin]

The Well of Loneliness by Radclyffe Hall.

[pooteeweet]

Some students in my English class think Wilde's Importance of Being Earnest has homosexual motifs, especially with the term "Bunburying" although I am not really sure if they are right.

Patrick

[WingedWolf]

I can't remember exactly but I recall something from Whitman's Song of Myself.

Moby Dick has A LOT of homosexual motifs that you are looking for I think.

Definitely check out some D H Lawrence too.

[Ashbe Maeur]

"Naked Lunch and other William Burroughs books. Be warned: these are very graphic indeed in their depictions of homosexual sex. Dennis Cooper's books are too. "

Indeed.

I couldn't work the stupid quote thing today. Sorry.

[milktea]

Perhaps there are homosexual motifs in the story of King David, but then you could say the same thing for Gilgamesh or the Iliad. I think we shouldn't ignore what Plato later described as the ideal of love. A beloved companion seems to me more of a unifying element in the hero genre--which would include King David--than a homosexual motif.

To add to the list:
Boccaccio's Decameron
Mishima's Forbidden Colors
poetry by Sappho and Catullus

[kelby_lake]

I can't remember exactly but I recall something from Whitman's Song of Myself.

Moby Dick has A LOT of homosexual motifs that you are looking for I think.

Definitely check out some D H Lawrence too.

Yep. Sharing the bed was very suspect- it was not just my 13 year old self's sense of humour.

[OrphanPip]

My name's blp, actually, OrphanPip – as it says very clearly above my avatar. This Duh fellow is some ghost you've dreamed up.

But perhaps the answer to the thread starter's question isn't quite so obvious. What do you mean by gay motifs, Uroborus? Something distinct from gay themes, gay subject matter etc.?

Haha, I wasn't attempting to poke fun. However, it does amount to stating the obvious when you say there are homosexual motifs in White's autobiographical novels about growing up gay in the Midwest in A Boy's Own Story, American academia in The Beautiful Room is Empty, or his experiences with AIDS in the 80s in The Farewell Symphony.

Although, I believe the thread starter seems to be specifically looking for explicitly lesbian content, as she cites Sputnik Sweetheart as the sort of thing she's looking for.

[blp]

However, it does amount to stating the obvious when you say there are homosexual motifs in White's autobiographical novels about growing up gay in the Midwest in A Boy's Own Story, American academia in The Beautiful Room is Empty, or his experiences with AIDS in the 80s in The Farewell Symphony.


I know and I felt a bit silly writing it really. But for all I knew the question was really just a request for books with gay subject matter, hence my request for clarification.

[kelby_lake]

Possibly some in The Great Gatsby...
Giovanni's Room, that's a good one.

[ktr]

Possibly some in The Great Gatsby...

uhhhhhhh explain

[kelby_lake]

uhhhhhhh explain

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16511

No one really bothers to look at Nick as a character much, even though he is the only character who changes over the course of the novel, but I quite like him.

Let's face it, Nick is a little bit obsessed with Gatsby, even though he claims not to be. Then we've got the whole elipses between the elevator and Nick in another man's bedroom with the man half-clothed.

[ktr]

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16511

No one really bothers to look at Nick as a character much, even though he is the only character who changes over the course of the novel, but I quite like him.

Let's face it, Nick is a little bit obsessed with Gatsby, even though he claims not to be. Then we've got the whole elipses between the elevator and Nick in another man's bedroom with the man half-clothed.

obsessed with gatsby - i dont know about that, he's a narrator focusing on the ... main/title character of the book.

he's totally banging the **** out of jordan baker, he doesn't explicitly say so too often, but it's quite clear.

---------

in regards to the link you posted, that guy is either trolling or half retarded.

[kelby_lake]

obsessed with gatsby - i dont know about that, he's a narrator focusing on the ... main/title character of the book.

he's totally banging the **** out of jordan baker, he doesn't explicitly say so too often, but it's quite clear.


I got the impression that Nick and Jordan had sort of settled for each other. He seems to like a manly type of woman.

Fitzgerald could've written it in third-person and we'd still get all of Gatsby's story, probably less biased. But instead we see it through the filter of Nick, who does not have much connection to them, apart from an imposed one.

[ktr]

I got the impression that Nick and Jordan had sort of settled for each other. He seems to like a manly type of woman.

Fitzgerald could've written it in third-person and we'd still get all of Gatsby's story, probably less biased. But instead we see it through the filter of Nick, who does not have much connection to them, apart from an imposed one.

i don't understand your perception of jordan baker being a manly type of woman. she is described as slender and small breasted, as having a nice looking dainty face, etc - she is a golfer and what not. where does your interpretation come from that she is manly at all?

i thinky oure missing the entire point of the narration and his underplayed effects the war had on his psyche - his first person narration is extremely observant, yet oddly non-sympathetic. why do you think that is? because he's gay? or because he's seen a ton of good men die needlessly -

well, i doubt it's because he's gay-

there is one scene where he describes looking into baker's face, in the car, in the moonlight or whatever - you get the clear of how precisely into her he actually is.

[Uroboros1989]

When i wrote homosexual motif i meant pure homosexual relationships between women or men. Thank everyone for extensive stuff.

[johnw1]

A Room With a View is interesting from this perspective. There are undertones throughout the novel most prominently in the bathing scene. I've heard one reading that suggests Forster intended Lucy Honeychurch to be male initially which may go some way to explaining the way in which she fights against her feelings for George and the otherwise surprisingly negative response from Mr Bebe at the end. Also on the topic of Forster, Maurice is explicitly about this, and very rare for when it was written (early 20th Century, although only published posthumously in 1971).

[johnw1]

obsessed with gatsby - i dont know about that, he's a narrator focusing on the ... main/title character of the book.

he's totally banging the **** out of jordan baker, he doesn't explicitly say so too often, but it's quite clear.



I have to agree with kelby_lake - this definitely seems a sustainable reading of Nick's character. I think you can't dismiss his focus on Gatsby as merely being because he is the main character in the book - Nick is attracted to Gatsby strongly, even obsessed, and there are a number of possible explanations for this, one definitely being that he has repressed feelings for him. Also, I think it is slightly hinted at that he may have spent the night with the photographer at the party at Myrtle and Tom's flat. He follows Daisy and Gatsby round partly "enchanted and repelled" which could either be an interest in Daisy or Gatsby himself or even both. There's certainly a feeling that he's left out on the sidelines looking in. I don't see his relationship with Jordan as amounting to much, it doesn't take up much of his attention and he seems to sort of fall into it carelessly, all while his thoughts and eyes linger on something else.

[ktr]

I have to agree with kelby_lake - this definitely seems a sustainable reading of Nick's character. I think you can't dismiss his focus on Gatsby as merely being because he is the main character in the book - Nick is attracted to Gatsby strongly, even obsessed, and there are a number of possible explanations for this, one definitely being that he has repressed feelings for him. Also, I think it is slightly hinted at that he may have spent the night with the photographer at the party at Myrtle and Tom's flat. He follows Daisy and Gatsby round partly "enchanted and repelled" which could either be an interest in Daisy or Gatsby himself or even both. There's certainly a feeling that he's left out on the sidelines looking in. I don't see his relationship with Jordan as amounting to much, it doesn't take up much of his attention and he seems to sort of fall into it carelessly, all while his thoughts and eyes linger on something else.

you're reading too much into things that are not there or do not happen, and are not paying enough attention to the things that do happen.

even at the end of the novel when things dont work out with baker because of the incident, he still needs to see her again, he talks abotu how gorgeous she looks, he says he's still half in love with her - he wanted to marry the girl. maybe some people here have some repressed sexual desires, carraway though, no sir.

[johnw1]

you're reading too much into things that are not there or do not happen, and are not paying enough attention to the things that do happen.

even at the end of the novel when things dont work out with baker because of the incident, he still needs to see her again, he talks abotu how gorgeous she looks, he says he's still half in love with her - he wanted to marry the girl. maybe some people here have some repressed sexual desires, carraway though, no sir.

I maintain it's a possible reading of Nick's character. If you look at the scene in the elevator then there is some pretty glaring phallic symbolism, next he is by the photographer's (described as 'pale and feminine') bed and then the scene skips to the train station leaving a suspicious gap. It's by no means conclusive but there are definitely some hints there. Jordan is described as 'boyish', her name doubles as a boy's name. I don't see him as being that into Jordon - they're described as careless and the whole thing just ends abruptly and without much fuss and all the while even when he's with her his eyes are elsewhere. He was engaged before to a girl he seems not to have found attractive. It would explain his great interest in Gatsby and his willingness to set him up with Daisy - by procuring a lover for him he could be attempting to fulfill his desires by proxy - after all he is something of a voyeur.

[Taliesin]

I must admit that on first seeing the theme, I imagined that a question akin to "I've heard, you know, that there are homosexual motives in books (but I don't really buy it). Is it really true?" would be posed.

But as for the real question posed, Cunningham is rather good. Especially "The Hours", I would say.

And now, I'd like to ask a question myself: "I've heard that some books talk, you know, about heterosexual themes. Is it really true?"

[ktr]

I maintain it's a possible reading of Nick's character. If you look at the scene in the elevator then there is some pretty glaring phallic symbolism, next he is by the photographer's (described as 'pale and feminine') bed and then the scene skips to the train station leaving a suspicious gap. It's by no means conclusive but there are definitely some hints there. Jordan is described as 'boyish', her name doubles as a boy's name. I don't see him as being that into Jordon - they're described as careless and the whole thing just ends abruptly and without much fuss and all the while even when he's with her his eyes are elsewhere. He was engaged before to a girl he seems not to have found attractive. It would explain his great interest in Gatsby and his willingness to set him up with Daisy - by procuring a lover for him he could be attempting to fulfill his desires by proxy - after all he is something of a voyeur.

well, i maintain that this reading of the character is ridiculous, for 2 reasons. the first being, it's silly, jordan is not described as boyish at all, some of you are just hopping on the train of that idea because some dude with poor comprehension said so. but the second and more important reason - even if he were gay, or bi - how would it affect the novel at all? homosexuality isn;t even dealt with in the book, there is nothing about it. i maintain that homosexual and heterosexual people are both people, and both observe the universe in a fundamentally similar way, regardless of their sexual orientation, neither being superior or inferior.

so, even if you were correct (which you aren't) what does that interpretation of the character do for the book? if it doesn't do anything, what's the point?

[johnw1]

well, i maintain that this reading of the character is ridiculous, for 2 reasons. the first being, it's silly, jordan is not described as boyish at all, some of you are just hopping on the train of that idea because some dude with poor comprehension said so. but the second and more important reason - even if he were gay, or bi - how would it affect the novel at all? homosexuality isn;t even dealt with in the book, there is nothing about it. i maintain that homosexual and heterosexual people are both people, and both observe the universe in a fundamentally similar way, regardless of their sexual orientation, neither being superior or inferior.

so, even if you were correct (which you aren't) what does that interpretation of the character do for the book? if it doesn't do anything, what's the point?

In answer to your points:

1. - This is how Jordan is first described:

'a slender small breasted girl with an erect carriage which she accented by throwing her body back at the shoulders like a young cadet.'

Remember everything we see is presented by Nick so she reminds him of a 'young cadet' - i.e. a boy.

- Consider this passage:

'McKee was a pale, feminine man from the flat below. He had just shaved, for there was a white spot of lather on his cheekbone, and he was most respectful in his greeting to every one in the room. He informed me that he was in the “artistic game,” and I gathered later that he was a photographer [...] This absorbing information about my neighbor was interrupted by Mrs. McKee’s pointing suddenly at Catherine:
"Chester, I think you could do something with HER,” she broke out, but Mr. McKee only nodded in a bored way, and turned his attention to Tom.
“I’d like to do more work on Long Island, if I could get the entry. All I ask is that they should give me a start.”
“Ask Myrtle, [...] You’ll give McKee a letter of introduction to your husband, so he can do some studies of him.” His lips moved silently for a moment as he invented. “GEORGE B. WILSON AT THE GASOLINE PUMP, or something like that.”
[...] It was nine o’clock—almost immediately afterward I looked at my watch and found it was ten. Mr. McKee was asleep on a chair with his fists clenched in his lap, like a photograph of a man of action. Taking out my handkerchief I wiped from his cheek the remains of the spot of dried lather that had worried me all the afternoon.
[...] Then Mr. 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 . . . Loneliness . . . 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.'

Now as I say this is not conclusive but there is enough phallic symbolism and innuendo (pump, lever etc) and McKee's appearance and Nick daintily removing the foam from his face and the ellipsis as the events in the bedroom are passed over etc. to suggest that something may have happened here.

2. I completely disagree. To me Nick is fundamental to any reading of the book as we see everything through him. His ambiguous, dishonest narration is fascinating. It has been rightly said that it is Nick that makes Gatsby great. So if sexual attraction is involved I think this does add an important dimension.

Overall, I'm not saying Nick is definitely gay but merely this is one possible, and interesting, interpretation.

[ktr]

First of all, that is not how Jordan is first described, but - as to your point, i don't see how that is taken as her looking as a male - it's a comment about her physique, and posture, which most people would find attractive. it makes her appear to be self assured, confident, athletic - which she is.

You’ll give McKee a letter of introduction to your husband, so he can do some studies of him.” His lips moved silently for a moment as he invented. “GEORGE B. WILSON AT THE GASOLINE PUMP, or something like that.”

that's said by tom buchanan, fyi.

Taking out my handkerchief I wiped from his cheek the remains of the spot of dried lather that had worried me all the afternoon.

and? the guy had something on his cheek that was bothering him for a long time, he finally got drunk enough to do something about it.

“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.”

the guy was interfering with the elevator boys job - i'd be pissed too if i were the elevator boy.

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 . . . Loneliness . . . 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.'

he has already stated he was drunk only twice in his life and doesn't remember the day with clarity. who knows how it happened, youve never gotten wasted and woken up in a weird position in a place that's kinda crazy? what did you do in highschool and college?

--------

It was nine o’clock—almost immediately afterward I looked at my watch and found it was ten.

clearly, he's blacking out a bit. gay, or drunk?

drunk.

[kelby_lake]

I'm not saying that Nick is definitely gay; I'm saying that it is a possible reading. If you were studying love and relationships in that book, you would have to at least touch on the fact that Nick might be gay.

Why did Fitzgerald choose to have Nick wake up in a man's bedroom with the man semi-clothed? It would have been quite easy to just have Nick passed out on the sofa, or even that the guy just came in to check he's okay. That moment is purposefully ambiguous- for all we know, they might have been having a lovely chaste game of chess in that blur.

When Jordan and Nick part, he shakes her hand; their affair was basically just to pass the time. Nick says he was 'half in love with her', meaning that he was more in love with his ideal of her than him actually having strong feelings for her.

Daisy calls Nick a 'rose' and doesn't treat him as a man, really.

[ktr]

He shakes hands with her, immediately after that - "angry and half in love with her, and tremendously sorry, i turned away."

he's heartbroken, he doesnt go into the detail of their relationship but it's clear it was more than a passing fling she said "you threw me over, i was dizzy for a while" - she couldnt even think straight after nick dumped her, and this a girl that had no problem dealing with myrtle getting destroyed and splattered by a friend of hers.

he doesn't go into the details of their relationship because it isn't relevant to the story, but you catch it in moments - and i think that;s what he's trying to go for with it - not to show the character is possibly gay, but that for him, even romance, with a gorgeous, somewhat famous athlete is still relatively meaningless, everything is cheap and meaningless - life is - and there's no point in focusing on all the goodness, it's apt to be destroyed in a flash.

[ktr]

these were good posts btw - in case you didnt read them.


Literary device not literal intepretation. two different things. Literary devices refer to specific aspects of literature, in the sense of its universal function as an art form which expresses ideas through language, which we can recognize, identify, interpret and/or analyze. Literary devices collectively comprise the art form’s components; the means by which authors create meaning through language, and by which readers gain understanding of and appreciation for their works. They also provide a conceptual framework for comparing individual literary works to others, both within and across genres. Both literary elements and literary techniques can be called literary devices.

perhaps the 'underwear scene' was supposed to show how uncouth, slobbish, etc. that society truly was.
i agree with the drunk concept more than the gay one, though it is an interesting twist and take on Nick. xD


just reading the book... found this passage (is it correct to call it a passage?) chapter three when he describes other things he's done besides gatsby's party:

"I even had an affair with a girl who lived in Jersey City and worked in the accounting department, but her brother began throwing mean looks in my direction, so when she went on her vacation in July, I let it blow away quietly."

and this:

" I liked to walk up Fifth Avenue and pick out romantic women from the crowd and imagine that in a few minutes I was going to enter into their lives... sometimes in my mind i followed them to their apartments... and they turned and smiled back at me..."

so I'm guessing he's fascinated by gatsby but is capable of being attracted to women?

[kelby_lake]

There's definitely a romantic disillusionment in Nick, I agree, but he momentarily loses that when he's riding of the wave of Gatsby's fantasy.

I think Nick and Jordan's relationship is basically a heady summer fling, caught up in the fun of the parties. Gatsby and Daisy had what was basically a fling 5 years ago; Nick, Jordan and Daisy can move on from their flings- Gatsby can't. And Nick can't just drop Gatsby like everybody else does.

Nick criticises Gatsby in his narrative (never really to his face) for devoting his attentions to a romanticised version of Daisy, even though Nick fell for Gatsby's charm and mystique. He presents Gatsby as a tragic figure even though Gatsby doesn't do much to warrent being a tragic hero.

[ktr]

i'm pretty sure that's why he admires (not sexually yearns for) gatsby - his romantic desire, his passion, for daisy, especially because they have both been to war, and it hasn't destroyed that in him - in fact gatsby says he tried very hard to die in the war, and because of that he became a hero, at least in most people's eyes.

i think it gives him some hope that his own disillusionment may pass, he might want to be gatsby, but he doesn't want to be with gatsby.

i personally love the way he understates the bond between himself and jordan, it might not be love - but there is definitely a lust present, and instead of writing about it he just casually says some things here and there like "we saw quite a bit of each other" and stuff like that

i forget the exact quote, i dont have the book in front of me but he describes an embrace of theirs in quite nice detail and ends it with "and then i lifted her face to mine" (something like that)

[kelby_lake]

I still think that Nick might have drunkenly engaged in deviant behaviour with the guy at the party.

[johnw1]

First of all, that is not how Jordan is first described, OK. I've not read the book in a while and briefly flicked through to find this quote. This doesn't effect my point of course.

but - as to your point, i don't see how that is taken as her looking as a male - Well, for the reasons I've already given; at that time a 'young cadet' would be taken as referring to a boy. Therefore I don't see how you can deny that Nick sees her as having some 'boyish' characteristics.

it's a comment about her physique, and posture, which most people would find attractive. it makes her appear to be self assured, confident, athletic - which she is. Well this is one aspect of the description certainly I'm not wanting to deny this. This doesn't mean it has to be the one exclusive point to be taken from the description.

You’ll give McKee a letter of introduction to your husband, so he can do some studies of him.” His lips moved silently for a moment as he invented. “GEORGE B. WILSON AT THE GASOLINE PUMP, or something like that.”

that's said by tom buchanan, fyi. I know this is said by Tom. But firstly Tom may have meant this as innuendo to imply that McKee would be more interested in photographing Myrtle's husband than sister - and perhaps he meant the pump to add to his subtle mockery of McKee. Even if this is not the case it may have been included by Fitzgerald as a device to subtly hint at the sexual inclinations of McKee. We should always remember also that Nick is narrating and selecting which incidents to relate; this detail is chosen whether subconsciously or consciously because it has some significance - maybe for the reasons I've suggested. Again, its one possible reading.


Taking out my handkerchief I wiped from his cheek the remains of the spot of dried lather that had worried me all the afternoon.

and? the guy had something on his cheek that was bothering him for a long time, he finally got drunk enough to do something about it. Again, this can be interpreted in the way you do or another way, taken together with the other possible hints in the rest of the passage.


“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.”

the guy was interfering with the elevator boys job - i'd be pissed too if i were the elevator boy.
Oh, come on, can you not see how this may seen in a different way? Imagine how an actor could choose to play this - i.e. stroking the lever suggestively looking at Nick and sending out pretty clear nonverbal signals. Again, consider why Nick has related it, why it is significant to him out of all the things that must have happened in that time.


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 . . . Loneliness . . . 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.'

he has already stated he was drunk only twice in his life and doesn't remember the day with clarity. who knows how it happened, youve never gotten wasted and woken up in a weird position in a place that's kinda crazy? what did you do in highschool and college?

--------
He doesn't say that though does he. He just passes over what happened. Did he pass out or did something else go on. It doesn't give the answer. Either is possible. You may feel the former is more likely but the latter is entirely plausible.


It was nine o’clock—almost immediately afterward I looked at my watch and found it was ten.

clearly, he's blacking out a bit. gay, or drunk?

drunk. No, he's either just drunk or drunk and then has sex - this is hardly a novel idea. All I'm saying is that one interesting reading is that he is gay. Just because you prefer another reading doesn't mean all others are ridiculous. There is clearly stuff that can be used as evidence for the interpretation. The Great Gatsby is very ambiguous - one of its greatest strengths - and there is no way you can access a definitive 'right' answer as you seem to think you can.

[ktr]

I still conclude this, after much thought - one has to read significantly into a lot of ambiguous details, and overlook a LOT of other ones in order to make a conclusion that nick is gay or bisexual. if you want to overlook his fiance, his NYC girlfriend, the women he stares are and imagines following home, jordan baker - fine.

if you want to see jordan as boyish looking despite his numerous assertions that she is a dainty/attractive/slender female because he refers to her posture as that of a cadet's (nevermind that there are female cadets and that interpretation is slightly offensive) and claim that the drunken lever scene is phallic, rather than typical of a drunken mess who wanders into an elevator and grabs THE EASIEST THING THERE TO STEADY HIMSELF - and probably ignores the first 2-3 suggestions to relinquish it because of his stupor and needs to be yelled at - well, fine. you're completely allowed to see it that way.

i maintain it is incorrect.

[myrna22]

I'm looking for homosexual motifs in books, one very attractive book that i can recommend is "Sputnik Sweetheart" by Haruki Murakami. This author is really amazing.
By the way we can find something in W.Whitman's poems.

THE TWYBORN AFFAIR by Patrick White. I believe this is what you are looking for. Also, White is an artist of the highest caliber.

[myrna22]

you're reading too much into things that are not there or do not happen, and are not paying enough attention to the things that do happen.

even at the end of the novel when things dont work out with baker because of the incident, he still needs to see her again, he talks abotu how gorgeous she looks, he says he's still half in love with her - he wanted to marry the girl. maybe some people here have some repressed sexual desires, carraway though, no sir.

I agree with this completely. Reading repressed homosexuality into Nick's character is reading something into the novel that isn't there, possibly more a matter of the reader's bias than what is in the text. It is also thinking in stereotypes--just because Nick finds Gatsby intriguing, does not mean he is sexually attracted to him. There is much about Gatsby, from Nick's perspective, the social milieu he is from, that makes Gatsby intriguing and no reason to suspect that the interest is sexual. Just because one man finds another interesting, it doesn't mean he is sexually interested.


I still conclude this, after much thought - one has to read significantly into a lot of ambiguous details, and overlook a LOT of other ones in order to make a conclusion that nick is gay or bisexual. if you want to overlook his fiance, his NYC girlfriend, the women he stares are and imagines following home, jordan baker - fine

Agree--"one has to read significantly into a lot of ambiguous details and OVERLOOK" a lot of others to read Nick as a repressed homosexual. I am firmly of the belief that any work of literature cannot mean anything one wants it to mean, that one needs to find the textual support for any interpretation. Twisting textual evidence to support a presupposed meaning is like the police or prosecution twisting evidence to support a presumption of guilt. It doesn't make it true. You are trying to fit details into a pattern you are imposing on the work rather than interpreting the work based on what is there.


Now as I say this is not conclusive but there is enough phallic symbolism and innuendo (pump, lever etc) and McKee's appearance and Nick daintily removing the foam from his face and the ellipsis as the events in the bedroom are passed over etc. to suggest that something may have happened here.
You really have to be reading things into it to see phallic symbolism in the elevator. Also, wiping the foam from McKee's face has more to do with the culture of the era than anything else. You, as a reader, cannot read into the behavior of characters in a 1920's culture how people would think or act today, with our current hypersensitivity to homosexuality. (For example, in today's world, people seeing 2 women walking down the street holding hands in NYC might likely assume lesbianism, whereas, in the 1920's - and in other cultures today-, it would more likely be seen as two very good friends walking down the street.) As well, that gesture only indicates Nick's kindness toward Mckee who is portrayed as anything but a sexually appealing man. It is pity, not sexuality.

[kelby_lake]

I still conclude this, after much thought - one has to read significantly into a lot of ambiguous details, and overlook a LOT of other ones in order to make a conclusion that nick is gay or bisexual. if you want to overlook his fiance, his NYC girlfriend, the women he stares are and imagines following home, jordan baker - fine.

if you want to see jordan as boyish looking despite his numerous assertions that she is a dainty/attractive/slender female because he refers to her posture as that of a cadet's (nevermind that there are female cadets and that interpretation is slightly offensive) and claim that the drunken lever scene is phallic, rather than typical of a drunken mess who wanders into an elevator and grabs THE EASIEST THING THERE TO STEADY HIMSELF - and probably ignores the first 2-3 suggestions to relinquish it because of his stupor and needs to be yelled at - well, fine. you're completely allowed to see it that way.

i maintain it is incorrect.

Many female cadets in the 1920's?

When looking at a piece of writing, you have to look at two things; what are choices on the part of the writer and what is necessary to plot/logic. If Fitzgerald had wanted to portray Jordan as a feminine character, he wouldn't have given her a man's name. Of course this does not mean that Nick is defiitely homosexual, but you can see how someone might use that to support a theory, as well as the cut from the elevator conversation to the bedroom; it could easily have cut just to the bench.

As for the fiancee (it's got two 'e's if it's a woman, lol), that isn't cast-iron proof that he's straight. It's not cast-iron proof the other way but as we don't hear much about her, we can conclude that it's just to give him a bit of background.

So, he fantasises about following the girls home. Nick is a bit of a fantasist anyway- he's just very interested in people. Just as you rightly assert that Nick having an interest in Gatsby doesn't prove that he's gay, Nick having a passing interest in the women doesn't prove that he's straight.

Intentional fallacy- term used in 20th-century literary criticism to describe the problem inherent in trying to judge a work of art by assuming the intent or purpose of the artist who created it.

Unless you are Fitzgerald himself, your opinion of what the author meant is still only an opinion. Good literature is ambiguous and open to interpretation. For example, I might view Othello as being about vengeance; someone else might view it as being about lust. Another might view it as being about prejudice. In persuing those interpretations, one might skirt over other issues and exaggerate particular ones in order to show one element of the book. They're not trying to say that Othello is about lust and nothing else; they are picking out one element.

[myrna22]

...they are picking out one element.

Focusing on one element is one thing, trying to read something into a text that is not inherently there by exaggerating the effect of any element is a very different thing.

[kelby_lake]

Focusing on one element is one thing, trying to read something into a text that is not inherently there by exaggerating the effect of any element is a very different thing.

And you can say definitively that there is absolutely nothing there? That there is nothing at all ambiguous about Nick? If you read The Line of Beauty and then re-read Gatsby, there are certainly some parallels which whether you choose to make anything of them or not are still quite interesting.

[myrna22]

And you can say definitively that there is absolutely nothing there? That there is nothing at all ambiguous about Nick? If you read The Line of Beauty and then re-read Gatsby, there are certainly some parallels which whether you choose to make anything of them or not are still quite interesting.

Why would you want to try to make a book something it isn't? We are talking, anyway, about motifs here. There is nothing in Gatsby to suggest a motif about homosexuality. It's what I said before: like a prosecutor--if they want to make the evidence of a crime fit a preconceived notion of what happened, they will attempt to do so, and often are quite convincing, to the point innocent people are convicted. Or, you can go by the evidence that is there and intrepret it. You are trying to do the former when the latter is what is appropriate.

[johnw1]

With all due respect to Myrna22 and Ktr, you're being pretty arrogant to completely dismiss the theory that Nick might be sexually attracted to Gatsby. I may not have stated the case very well but there clearly are details in the text that may be interpreted to reach that conclusion; you may not feel it's the best interpretation and that's your prerogative but since when do you have privileged access to some definitive and objective 'right' interpretation of, say, the passage that involving Nick and Mr McKee? It's clear that the facts can be marshalled in at least two different ways (just drunk, or, drunk and have sex). The Great Gatsby is highly ambiguous and finding a definitive reading is impossible - all we can do is decide what reading we find the most interesting/successful according to our subjective judgment. The analogy of a criminal trial (even here the best one can generally hope for is 'beyond reasonable doubt') is not at all suitable to reading The Great Gatsby.
Contrary to what ktr suggests I have no particular motivation to see Nick as gay but I've merely heard the case put by respectable critics, looked at the evidence and found that there is a case to be made which I find interesting as it puts a new twist upon the whole book. Nowhere in book is there anything that conclusively disproves this theory so I stand by my original comment that it is a sustainable reading of Nick's character.

[kelby_lake]

Entirely agree with johnw1. Reading is not about saying 'This is X and not Y'; enough people believe Y to make it a possible interpretation. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant; understanding it is the point. Why close yourself off to any other interpretation but your own? No one has said that Nick is definitely homosexual, so you can't accuse them of being like a single-minded prosecutor.

There isn't a homosexual motif in Gatsby, but relationships are a theme and someone who is homosexual might read that into it.

Oh, Women in Love has a sort of homosexual motif from what I've been reading so far and the infamous scene.

[ForKnowledge]

Melville's billy budd and Moby Dick. I remember the part in Moby Dick where they rub oil over each others hand can't remember the exact wording but it has to be the gayest paragraph I have ever read.

[kelby_lake]

And Ishmael and Queequeg sharing a bed!

[OrphanPip]

Why would you want to try to make a book something it isn't? We are talking, anyway, about motifs here. There is nothing in Gatsby to suggest a motif about homosexuality. It's what I said before: like a prosecutor--if they want to make the evidence of a crime fit a preconceived notion of what happened, they will attempt to do so, and often are quite convincing, to the point innocent people are convicted. Or, you can go by the evidence that is there and intrepret it. You are trying to do the former when the latter is what is appropriate.

Queer criticism isn't about making a book what it isn't. It's just simply asking a what if question and seeing where the question leads us. In Gatsby I think the question of if he's gay or bisexual may be fun, but it tells us very little. However, in something like Willa Cather's short story "Paul's Case" asking if Paul is gay tells us a lot.

[kilo]

The Wanting Seed is homosexual in plot.

[Jozanny]

The Wanting Seed is homosexual in plot.

Mmm. No. The plot line of any story is simply that. Plots are neither gay nor straight, they simply control the action. The Wanting Seed may have homoerotic concerns, but the plot is either boy gets boy or girl gets girl, or a not defined version thereof.

I recently joined a new spamlot disabled community, and under gender you had three choices:

male
female
not set

and from what I know of CripWorld, they have it down about right.:D We need a third gender!

[kelby_lake]

[QUOTE=OrphanPip;873199]Queer criticism isn't about making a book what it isn't. It's just simply asking a what if question and seeing where the question leads us. In Gatsby I think the question of if he's gay or bisexual may be fun, but it tells us very little.QUOTE]

It does tell us a bit. It makes Nick a hypocrite if he's criticising Gatsby's obsession with Daisy when his interest in Gatsby parallels it and further a hypocrite for talking about Gatsby's self-denial yet being in denial himself. It would also make him feel more of an outsider.
How far one would want to persue that interpretation is up to the individual reader. 'The Line of Beauty' seems to be drawing some sort of parallel (We've got an 'innocent' called Nick who enters the world of the rich and becomes less innocent), perhaps?

I would say that Nick is a bit of a romantic and tries to turn Gatsby into some sort of symbol but it's more of a man crush, so to speak. As we never really know Nick, it's hard to pass judgement on him as a character.

[Jozanny]

And sometimes reading too much into a text is just that. There is no biographical evidence I ever heard of that Fitzgerald had homosexual leanings, so it would be strange that he had a Jazz Age agenda over the issue of orientation. I have no doubt that Nick is drawn to Gatsby and that Jordan provides Daisy with a best buddy support; this does not mean, in either case, that same sex desire is being repressed. Tom and Gatsby are akin to a 20th century Hector and Achilles, giving off macho displays of who is the better man, and Nick and Jordan are facilitators for the upper American caste as Fitz saw it at the time.

Identity politics doesn't need to warp every social interaction between people. :rolleyes:

[sinotsimon]

"Less Than Zero" by Bret Easton Ellis is very gay in places :nod:

[OrphanPip]

Eve Sedgwick used the notion of a homosocial-homosexual spectrum in her criticism, basically saying that the barrier between homo-erotic and mere male-male social behavior is undefined. This method pretty much allows you to read homosexuality into essentially any male to male relationship. If we accept that there is an undefined point between heterosexual male behavior and homosexual then Nick harboring some homosexual tendencies isn't so much of stretch. Although, I'm inclined to find the question nearly irrelevant in this particular novel. Particularly, because it implies a sort of heteronormatism, we are assuming that all characters are heterosexual by default unless otherwise specified by some sort of clue or telltale sign. Any number of the characters could hold any number of homosexual desires, from minor crushes to obsessive love, and we would never know. Queer criticism shouldn't be about a witch hunt for outing fictional characters.

I think Nick's sexuality should only be relevant if that is the topic of the work itself. Instead when we look at Nick and say he's a repressed homosexual we're just attaching stereotypes. Is he a hypocrite or does he simply not recognize or admit his sexuality to himself? If we accept Sedwick's idea of a homosocial spectrum, and I think a lot of us just intuitively do to some degree, then any close male relationship could be interpreted as gay. If we can interpret almost anything as gay we should probably only spend our time using that when it is really relevant.

[Jozanny]

Pip, that really doesn't make any sense. There is such a thing as platonic pair bonding. I loved my mother, but I did not sexually desire her. I loved my best friend Soozie, but again, I had no desire for her, even if I was Jordan to her Daisy.

I do not deny that homoerotic compulsions may drive some of our relations to the same sex, but not all of them. I do not buy the universal latent theory.

[OrphanPip]

Pip, that really doesn't make any sense. There is such a thing as platonic pair bonding. I loved my mother, but I did not sexually desire her. I loved my best friend Soozie, but again, I had no desire for her, even if I was Jordan to her Daisy.

I do not deny that homoerotic compulsions may drive some of our relations to the same sex, but not all of them. I do not buy the universal latent theory.

It's not that purely platonic bonding doesn't occur it's the idea just that there is a spectrum with the purely platonic at one end and purely sexual at the other, and what falls inbetween is hard to define. Rather than defining platonic relations as something apart from sexual, they bleed into each other and so the lines of hetero and homosexual aren't always completely clear.

[johnw1]

And sometimes reading too much into a text is just that. There is no biographical evidence I ever heard of that Fitzgerald had homosexual leanings, so it would be strange that he had a Jazz Age agenda over the issue of orientation. I have no doubt that Nick is drawn to Gatsby and that Jordan provides Daisy with a best buddy support; this does not mean, in either case, that same sex desire is being repressed. Tom and Gatsby are akin to a 20th century Hector and Achilles, giving off macho displays of who is the better man, and Nick and Jordan are facilitators for the upper American caste as Fitz saw it at the time.

Identity politics doesn't need to warp every social interaction between people. :rolleyes:

That is only significant if our main purpose is to determine what Fitzgerald intended. Isn't there more to reading then that? It might be one interesting question but it's rather restrictive if we limit ourselves to that.

[Emil Miller]

This topic comes up every now and again despite the fact that it is a complete red herring. I have read the Great Gatsby six times and there is absolutely no reference, oblique or otherwise, to sexual ambivalence in any of the characters. To read anything into Fitzgerald's description of Jordan, other than that she is obviously used by the author as a foil to Daisy's ultra feminism, is a delusion. Nick's relationship to Gatsby is that of an onlooker fascinated by Gatsby's wealth but saddened by the realisation that Gatsby's quest is doomed to failure. Gatsby's relationship with Nick is that of someone who needs Nick because of his connection with Daisy. There are enough allusions in the story without looking for those that don't exist.

[johnw1]

This topic comes up every now and again despite the fact that it is a complete red herring. I have read the Great Gatsby six times and there is absolutely no reference, oblique or otherwise, to sexual ambivalence in any of the characters. To read anything into Fitzgerald's description of Jordan, other than that she is obviously used by the author as a foil to Daisy's ultra feminism, is a delusion. Nick's relationship to Gatsby is that of an onlooker fascinated by Gatsby's wealth but saddened by the realisation that Gatsby's quest is doomed to failure. Gatsby's relationship with Nick is that of someone who needs Nick because of his connection with Daisy. There are enough allusions in the story without looking for those that don't exist.

Brian Bean has spoken so now we all know the truth.:rolleyes5:

I don't get where some people think they get the authority to make a final judgment upon the interpretation of a text. Fine, you don't fine the argument convincing but to say there is 'absolutely no evidence, oblique or otherwise' etc is claiming to know something that you can't possibly know.

[kelby_lake]

Now we get into intentional fallacy. Literature at its most successful defies convention- hence we get Shakespeare (and the people who insist that he's entirely heterosexual).

[Emil Miller]

Brian Bean has spoken so now we all know the truth.:rolleyes5:

I don't get where some people think they get the authority to make a final judgment upon the interpretation of a text. Fine, you don't fine the argument convincing but to say there is 'absolutely no evidence, oblique or otherwise' etc is claiming to know something that you can't possibly know.

I don't get where some people are intent on trying to find evidence of homosexual motifs in The Great Gatsby when everything they produce in support of it is pure conjecture.

[johnw1]

I don't get where some people are intent on trying to find evidence of homosexual motifs in The Great Gatsby when everything they produce in support of it is pure conjecture.
Of course it's conjecture since it can't be proven. I'm not suggesting it can. Your view (that Nick is straight) is also conjecture. Neither can that be proven. That is the point I'm making - you can't make a definitive judgment here.

I refer you back to earlier posts where some details were suggested as evidence to support the theory that Nick may have been sexually attracted to men (the lift scenes etc). So there is some evidence, whether you find it convincing or not. I'm not 'intent' on it particularly I just find it an interesting theory to add to the others that The Great Gatsby's ambiguities allow for. I find it interesting because I think Nick is in many ways the most intriguing character in the book and this adds a new dimension to his motivations potentially.

[Emil Miller]

Of course it's conjecture since it can't be proven. I'm not suggesting it can. Your view (that Nick is straight) is also conjecture. Neither can that be proven. That is the point I'm making - you can't make a definitive judgment here.

I refer you back to earlier posts where some details were suggested as evidence to support the theory that Nick may have been sexually attracted to men (the lift scenes etc). So there is some evidence, whether you find it convincing or not. I'm not 'intent' on it particularly I just find it an interesting theory to add to the others that The Great Gatsby's ambiguities allow for. I find it interesting because I think Nick is in many ways the most intriguing character in the book and this adds a new dimension to his motivations potentially.

I do not find the lift scene to be potentially homosexual. By the same token, if two men were to shake hands in a novel it would be possible to read a homosexual connection there: in fact, all human interaction could be deduced as having a homosexual connotation if one wants to interpret it it in that way. The final arbiter in this regard must be the author and I am sure that if Fitzgerald wanted to imply homosexuality in his novel, he would have done so in a more positive manner than that which is imagined by those who subscribe to the theory.

[Jozanny]

I disagree with the notion that any same sex interaction can be gay just because gay readers would like to see it that way; it would be akin to me objecting to Washington playing the paralyzed detective from the book The Bone Collector because in the novel the detective is white--though why casting had to have Washington in the role is beyond me, since the novel was a hit and the movie fizzed.

Homoerotic interpretations of literature have the same requirements as others, and that is evidence necessary to support it. One can do that with Shakespeare, James, Cather, Baldwin, Forster--but it is a disservice to literature when it gets out of hand. It takes classics down if they have to be read through tunnel vision. More importantly, Nick is telling us a story, he narrates, but he is not the hero, or the primary protagonist of The Great Gatsby. He observes, interprets Tom as a brute and interprets Jay Gatsby as something else, perhaps a stubborn romantic.

[OrphanPip]

I disagree with the notion that any same sex interaction can be gay just because gay readers would like to see it that way; it would be akin to me objecting to Washington playing the paralyzed detective from the book The Bone Collector because in the novel the detective is white--though why casting had to have Washington in the role is beyond me, since the novel was a hit and the movie fizzed.

Homoerotic interpretations of literature have the same requirements as others, and that is evidence necessary to support it. One can do that with Shakespeare, James, Cather, Baldwin, Forster--but it is a disservice to literature when it gets out of hand. It takes classics down if they have to be read through tunnel vision. More importantly, Nick is telling us a story, he narrates, but he is not the hero, or the primary protagonist of The Great Gatsby. He observes, interprets Tom as a brute and interprets Jay Gatsby as something else, perhaps a stubborn romantic.

I don't disagree that evidence is required to support it Jozanny. Sedgwick's views are extreme, but I think there is something to her idea that we can't decisively conclude that all actions are either homoerotic or not. What is perceived as homoerotic varies between cultures, times, and even individuals. Although, once again I agree that there isn't very good reason to interpret The Great Gatsby with the assumption that Nick is gay.

[Jozanny]

I do not know what perceiving Nick as a homosexual in the closet adds to the story, especially as he is not the primary agent being acted upon by the author, even as Tom and Gatsby impose upon him. Part of my problem here is how astute I find Fitzgerald's writing to be. He does not pull any punches in Tender Is The Night, which is one of my favorite novels of the early 20th century, and I do not see what is to be gained by seeing a coda here. In Henry James, seeing that coda adds layers, maybe even horrors at how much James suffered in his life for not being more lascivious--but Nick is primarily our eyes and ears, slightly sardonic, humorous, and empathetic. I do not see self-denial, and more importantly, don't see how it adds anything to the pathos of the narrative already there.

[OrphanPip]

I do not know what perceiving Nick as a homosexual in the closet adds to the story, especially as he is not the primary agent being acted upon by the author, even as Tom and Gatsby impose upon him. Part of my problem here is how astute I find Fitzgerald's writing to be. He does not pull any punches in Tender Is The Night, which is one of my favorite novels of the early 20th century, and I do not see what is to be gained by seeing a coda here. In Henry James, seeing that coda adds layers, maybe even horrors at how much James suffered in his life for not being more lascivious--but Nick is primarily our eyes and ears, slightly sardonic, humorous, and empathetic. I do not see self-denial, and more importantly, don't see how it adds anything to the pathos of the narrative already there.

I pretty much agree, the question is nearly irrelevant to any meaningful interpretation of The Great Gatsby. Like I said earlier, we should really only dwell on these questions if it significantly adds something to the interpretation of the text.

[johnw1]

I do not know what perceiving Nick as a homosexual in the closet adds to the story, especially as he is not the primary agent being acted upon by the author, even as Tom and Gatsby impose upon him.
I'm suprised you have such little interest in Nick as a character in the novel. He is the prism through which all the action is seen and is a famously unreliable narrator despite his claims to honesty early on. To get to Tom, Gatsby and Daisy we need to go through Nick and if we can't take all he says at face value there is some real benefit in working out his psychology in order to appreciate what's going on. I forget who but some critic said something along the lines of Gatsby is just a bootlegger, criminal etc. There's also a line from someone that it is 'Nick that makes Gatsby great'. If you're mainly interesting in getting at Gatsby, Daisy etc we need to try to strip away Nick's more misleading contributions and to do that, again, we need to focus on who Nick is and what drives him. In the end I can't see that we can achieve this, I think Gatsby et al are obscured massively and in the end we know very little about them at all. Nick is therefore the central figure in all this for me. If, therefore, he was potentially gay that is pretty interesting in the slant it gives to his narration. Again, I want to stress no one in this thread has said 'Nick is gay' or even 'Nick is probably gay', only 'Nick may be gay' and this is an interesting theory which some hints in the text may be quoted in support of.

[johnw1]

I do not find the lift scene to be potentially homosexual. By the same token, if two men were to shake hands in a novel it would be possible to read a homosexual connection there: in fact, all human interaction could be deduced as having a homosexual connotation if one wants to interpret it it in that way.

Hardly comparable. There is far more in the lift scene than in shaking hands - this has never been suggested by anyone as having any link with being homosexual - whereas phallic symbolism in literature, stroking levers, getting naked in people's bedrooms etc does have more of a link. Not conclusive, merely a possibility.


The final arbiter in this regard must be the author and I am sure that if Fitzgerald wanted to imply homosexuality in his novel, he would have done so in a more positive manner than that which is imagined by those who subscribe to the theory.
Again, I disagree that there is a final arbiter here. The author doesn't get the privilege any more than you do. The text is what it is and we can read it as we like, the author does not have the right to provide a definitive reading - when he puts the work out to be read he loses control of it.

[kelby_lake]

Hardly comparable. There is far more in the lift scene than in shaking hands - this has never been suggested by anyone as having any link with being homosexual - whereas phallic symbolism in literature, stroking levers, getting naked in people's bedrooms etc does have more of a link. Not conclusive, merely a possibility.


Fitzgerald clearly isn't saying 'Look! They're in a bedroom, wink wink.' It's not Carry on Gatsby. However the incident is ambiguous.

Nick is pivotal in the novel and I haven't seen any bit of criticism that really explores his character. Gatsby's love story could quite easily have been a short story, and the novel could have been done in third-person.
Where does the romance come from? Gatsby does not have much dialogue and the dialogue he has is mainly subtext. It is Nick who draws out the subtext and romanticises everything. To not wonder about him at all as a character is strange when it is essentially his eyes that we see everything through.

[johnw1]

Fitzgerald clearly isn't saying 'Look! They're in a bedroom, wink wink.' It's not Carry on Gatsby. However the incident is ambiguous.
No I agree it's not in that tone but it may essentially amount to something pretty similar.


Nick is pivotal in the novel and I haven't seen any bit of criticism that really explores his character. Gatsby's love story could quite easily have been a short story, and the novel could have been done in third-person.
Where does the romance come from? Gatsby does not have much dialogue and the dialogue he has is mainly subtext. It is Nick who draws out the subtext and romanticises everything. To not wonder about him at all as a character is strange when it is essentially his eyes that we see everything through.
I completely agree. We know relatively little about Gatsby really. We don't know how much Nick is reading into things, selecting unevenly and consciously/subconsciously misleading us. We know he does some of those things.

[Emil Miller]

Hardly comparable. There is far more in the lift scene than in shaking hands - this has never been suggested by anyone as having any link with being homosexual - whereas phallic symbolism in literature, stroking levers, getting naked in people's bedrooms etc does have more of a link. Not conclusive, merely a possibility.


Again, I disagree that there is a final arbiter here. The author doesn't get the privilege any more than you do. The text is what it is and we can read it as we like, the author does not have the right to provide a definitive reading - when he puts the work out to be read he loses control of it.

Your assertion is simply ridiculous, there is no mention of anyone "stroking" the lift lever and nor is there any reference to "getting naked in people's bedrooms etc."
Here is the extract as Fitzgerald wrote it:

"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 by 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...Loneliness...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.

There is no more to this passage than two men who have had too much to drink at the party and one of whom is told off by an officious elevator boy who obviously doesn't like having two drunks in his lift.

The intellectual property rights of a novel belong to the author under copyright laws no matter what conclusions are drawn by readers. Of course anyone can surmise about the author's original intention but the story as written cannot be altered without his or the permission of his estate. Fitzgerald has spoken and what he says in The Great Gatsby has nothing to do with homosexuality eiher latent or otherwise. If you choose to look for it in the book then go ahead, but it will remain a figment of your imagination.

[Jozanny]

If the argument is that Nick is unreliable as a narrator because he is possibly homosexual, this seems specious to me. The episode in the elevator represents two men trying to uphold social manners after having just escaped from an episode of domestic violence, and no, Nick is not fully fleshed out in the novel, precisely because Fitz is representing a period that came and went with lightning speed towards the end of WW1 through the crash of 29. If anything, the Jazz Age itself is the character of the book. Nick summarizes and dismisses himself repeatedly, his family linage, his prospective employments, his understanding back home, even his relationship to Jordan, so as a reader, I ride along with the sketch, knowing full well I am not invited to fill in the blanks anymore than what Fitz gives me to fill in, and that pretty much comes in the opening when Nick offers some detail about his empathetic sympathy for doomed aspiration.

I read nothing about how interpreting the novel is radicalized in any way by suspecting that Nick has a latent homoerotic need for his own sex. Gatsby was the soldier Daisy fell for before she was forced or convinced into marriage with Tom. The only thing I see in Jordan's background story as Nick offers is a touch of envy, as the golf athlete is second tier.

Offer me a reading I can respect according to the subversive traditions of homoerotic embedding, then perhaps I'll concede, but it seems to me you're set on the shape of the cloud as it suggests itself because the cloud itself is mutable, and Shakespeare famously mocks this though Hamlet's agile wit.

[johnw1]

Your assertion is simply ridiculous, there is no mention of anyone "stroking" the lift lever and nor is there any reference to "getting naked in people's bedrooms etc."
I know this isn't mentioned explicitly but I'm saying there may be some subtle hints towards this. I.e. Nick is later by Mr McKee's bed with McKee in his underwear then some time is skipped over before Nick turns up on the station platform. I'm just suggesting potential ways of filling in these gaps.

The intellectual property rights of a novel belong to the author under copyright laws no matter what conclusions are drawn by readers. Of course anyone can surmise about the author's original intention but the story as written cannot be altered without his or the permission of his estate. Fitzgerald has spoken and what he says in The Great Gatsby has nothing to do with homosexuality eiher latent or otherwise. If you choose to look for it in the book then go ahead, but it will remain a figment of your imagination.
Firstly, to be pedantic, I'm not sure it is still the property of his estate since the copyright has expired, hence its proliferation online.

But I think your approach to reading is very dull. We can only take out of a book what it was the author's conscious intention to put into it?? If that's the point you're making that's unnecessarily and depressingly restrictive. I think we can take from a book whatever reading we think the textual evidence supports. Why bother thinking for ourselves if not; we may as well just ask the author the answers to all our questions and leave it at that.

Nick's straightness will remain a figment of your imagination equally; as I said earlier it is conjecture and filling in the gaps. We can't prove our interpretations to be right. And can I say again, I don't believe Nick is gay I just think there is some evidence that may lead in that direction which I find an interesting theory.

[johnw1]

If the argument is that Nick is unreliable as a narrator because he is possibly homosexual, this seems specious to me.
I have never remotely suggested that. If you think Nick is unfailingly honest I suggest you return to re-read the book. He is an unreliable narrator which is why the book is so ambiguous.



The episode in the elevator represents two men trying to uphold social manners after having just escaped from an episode of domestic violence,
Again, yes that's one reading of it. I have no problems with that reading. It may even be the most likely but it isn't the only reading possible.



and no, Nick is not fully fleshed out in the novel, precisely because Fitz is
representing a period that came and went with lightning speed towards the end of WW1 through the crash of 29. If anything, the Jazz Age itself is the character of the book. Nick summarizes and dismisses himself repeatedly, his family linage, his prospective employments, his understanding back home, even his relationship to Jordan, so as a reader, I ride along with the sketch, knowing full well I am not invited to fill in the blanks anymore than what Fitz gives me to fill in, and that pretty much comes in the opening when Nick offers some detail about his empathetic sympathy for doomed aspiration.
Well I agree with the point about the Jazz Age. However, to address your main point, the book is written from Nick's perspective, it could have been written from the perspective of an omniscient narrator. I think this adds another dimension to the book; that is exploring the act of recounting the past itself. We see which incidents Nick selects and what emphasis he chooses to put upon them, and what motivations he reads into the other characters in the novel. This makes a study of Nick's psychology of paramount importance in my view.


I read nothing about how interpreting the novel is radicalized in any way by suspecting that Nick has a latent homoerotic need for his own sex. Gatsby was the soldier Daisy fell for before she was forced or convinced into marriage with Tom. The only thing I see in Jordan's background story as Nick offers is a touch of envy, as the golf athlete is second tier.

Offer me a reading I can respect according to the subversive traditions of homoerotic embedding, then perhaps I'll concede, but it seems to me you're set on the shape of the cloud as it suggests itself because the cloud itself is mutable, and Shakespeare famously mocks this though Hamlet's agile wit.
As I say, I'm interested in Nick, where his motivations lie, why he's imbued the seemingly commonplace character of Gatsby with such significance and poetry. If Nick does fancy Gatsby this interpretation does change things.

I don't see why you would need a higher level of evidence for homosexuality than anything else. After all it's not uncommon (one in ten?) so in that sense it would be no great surprise. I know back in 1926 homosexuality was far less prominent but that mainly suggests it was not admitted to (just as Nick in his retelling would not want to admit to it and any hints would stay as just that).

[kelby_lake]

If the argument is that Nick is unreliable as a narrator because he is possibly homosexual, this seems specious to me.


No one said that...I think it's universally agreed that Nick is to an extent unreliable. Why he is is up for debate.

[Emil Miller]

I know this isn't mentioned explicitly but I'm saying there may be some subtle hints towards this. I.e. Nick is later by Mr McKee's bed with McKee in his underwear then some time is skipped over before Nick turns up on the station platform. I'm just suggesting potential ways of filling in these gaps.

Firstly, to be pedantic, I'm not sure it is still the property of his estate since the copyright has expired, hence its proliferation online.

But I think your approach to reading is very dull. We can only take out of a book what it was the author's conscious intention to put into it?? If that's the point you're making that's unnecessarily and depressingly restrictive. I think we can take from a book whatever reading we think the textual evidence supports. Why bother thinking for ourselves if not; we may as well just ask the author the answers to all our questions and leave it at that.

Nick's straightness will remain a figment of your imagination equally; as I said earlier it is conjecture and filling in the gaps. We can't prove our interpretations to be right. And can I say again, I don't believe Nick is gay I just think there is some evidence that may lead in that direction which I find an interesting theory.

It is highly unlikely that Nick would have spent the intervening time with Mr McKee as McKee's wife was still upstairs with the others in the wake of Tom's assault on Myrtle Wilson. I agree that we take from a book whatever the textual evidence supports but in the case of Gatsby, notwithstanding the metaphorical and allegorical references it contains, there is nothing to suggest that homosexuality is evidenced by the text.

[Jozanny]

It may be a fine distinction to make, but nevertheless, I think there is a distinction to be had between homo-affability and homoeroticism; Nick is certainly congenial with his fellows, as I assume Fitzgerald and his wife were when they were in the thick of their social set, but gayety once had an entirely different meaning before queer identity took over the word.

I have read my fair share of homoerotic literature--not too much, and I am not always in the mood for the gaming theory aspect of it, in that sexuality is not always either that dramatic or that sinister--but in comparison to Henry James, or Cather, or even some more contemporary authors, I simply don't see it as applicable to Fitzgerald's best work, and here end my foray into this debate.

[Maida]

Thomas Mann- Death in Venice
Virginia Woolf- Orlando

I'm not a fan of Virginia Woolf but I completely agree with Thomas Mann's Death in Venice. The homosexual motifs are explicit, if that's what you're looking for.

[hellsapoppin]

Katharine V Forrest's detective Kate Delafield series deals with a lesbian police officer in Los Angeles. There are homosexual themes thorughout the entire series.

[kelby_lake]

I'm not a fan of Virginia Woolf but I completely agree with Thomas Mann's Death in Venice. The homosexual motifs are explicit, if that's what you're looking for.

Women in Love, definitely.

I thought Death in Venice was supposed to be about obsession with beauty?

[Emil Miller]

I thought Death in Venice was supposed to be about obsession with beauty?

Ostensibly but, like other bisexual and homosexual writers, Mann couldn't resist the temptation to display his aberrant propensity in writing. It is hardly a coincidence that the film of Death in Venice was directed by Luchino Visconti or that it starred Dirk Bogarde who were both homosexual. Similarly, the opera Death in Venice was composed by Benjamin Britten who was also
homosexual.

[kelby_lake]

Thanks to 'The Habit of Art', I know about Britten :D

[OrphanPip]

Ostensibly but, like other bisexual and homosexual writers, Mann couldn't resist the temptation to display his aberrant propensity in writing. It is hardly a coincidence that the film of Death in Venice was directed by Luchino Visconti or that it starred Dirk Bogarde who were both homosexual. Similarly, the opera Death in Venice was composed by Benjamin Britten who was also
homosexual.

Guh I know. Heterosexual writers are even worse, it's like every single thing they write involves heteros.

[AllyFizzle]

In Cold Blood - Truman Capote

[Emil Miller]

Guh I know. Heterosexual writers are even worse, it's like every single thing they write involves heteros.

In a number of cases homosexual or bisexual writers are known to write generally about heterosexuals. It's normally a single novel or story, or just intimations in their oeuvre that imply their own sexuality.

[Modest Proposal]

I know this isn't mentioned explicitly but I'm saying there may be some subtle hints towards this. I.e. Nick is later by Mr McKee's bed with McKee in his underwear then some time is skipped over before Nick turns up on the station platform. I'm just suggesting potential ways of filling in these gaps.

I hope you don't mind my quoting this small portion of your post, but as I'm addressing the threads intended issue--homosexual motifs--and not The Great Gatsby specifically, this portion you wrote is the part most relevant to my point.

What I find odd, is not so much that a homosexual would write about homosexuality--Orphanpip pointed out well that heteros are "guilty" of the same thing, and that really this is to be expected, even desired, since we ask writers most often to write what they know--, I find it odd that someone would try and "fill in the gaps" of a text to a specific purpose. I don't think that homosexuals do this any more than heteros or Catholics or athiests, but I think it is dangerous to approach a text with the intent to find gaps that one may fill with their intended purpose (no sexual innuendo intended).

Most modern theorists have rested comfortably on the decision to approach texts as "open" and with "the death of the author" allow for an empowered reading. But there comes a degree in which, this seems not only fruitless and immature but almost itself the type of ideologic imperialism that English Departments condemn. Bringing to an author's text, the author being often not there to represent themselves, an idea that works against what appears to be the intended meaning is nothing less then deplorable. If you want a text so open that you can make your own meaning, find a dictionary and write your own books. Stop colonizing authors work for your own purposes.

[Jozanny]

Not to piggyback on Modest's point, but even if I wanted to be sympathetic to a queer theory revisionist approach to TGG, I have no idea how it enhances or changes reading the book; what I am focusing on in my notes is Fitz's use of color as symbolic of jazz music's improvisation.

I am a pretty radical intellect--I am just not allowed to really let loose in this community-- but like I said, given the evidence in the novel itself, I do not see what any supposition about Nick or Jordan's orientation adds. Nick doesn't seek Jay out, and is in fact often impatient with him. Gatsby is more or less dropped on Nick, almost in terms of mythic import. Gatsby is larger than life, and to me Nick is just more or less a cheerfully ironic wingman who sees both the misfortune and the dazzle of the story he is telling.

There are instances where homoerotic readings add greatly to a narrative, but not here, as far as I can see.

[kelby_lake]

I'd call it a symbolic love affair as opposed to Nick really fancies Gatsby. Gatsby represents hope for Nick and even though Nick scorns Gatsby, he never tells him to forget about Daisy and move on. It's a one-sided relationship- Gatsby isn't really friends with Nick, he's just adopted him- the intensity of which might make people interpret it as having undertones.

[Jozanny]

Well, not to be too critical kelby, but I think this is where the quite modern outgrowth of identity politics can occasionally be a disservice--even with my pet identity issues. But to stick to the issue at hand, the one time I did really push back against the Jamesians was when the had to see the homoerotic in everything James wrote as "a subversion of the natural Victorian bonds". My concern wasn't the homoeroticism per see, as even Thomas Hardy called James "an old lady"--but that this might necessarily narrow James as being read solely as a repressed gay man--and he offers more than that, unlike many modern gay realism texts. I am not saying these are bad, mind, just that, of those I sampled, few had the depth I like, except one about a Chinese chef and food which was soft on the sex and more about the cultural divide between modern China and the US.

And even with Death In Venice or Orlando, these are not simply gay literature, and a straight reader should not be deterred from exploring them. Mann is not really explicit, and his story is more late Romanticism corrupted, and I even do not believe that Woolf was literally incorporating transgender, but I will hold my fire here since everyone sees Orlando's gender switch as a queer text indicator.

I cannot remember the title with the Chinese narrator though, and wish I could; it is modern, and gay, but was nearly impressionist in aspect, and symbolic about food.

[kelby_lake]

I don't see James as being repressed- or at least that's not obvious. Lawrence however does have a miner fetish.

[OrphanPip]

Any pre-Stonewall gay literature, or literature with homoerotic undertones, is often viewed exclusively in terms of sexual repression. I think there is a real problem with this, there's more to Forster's Maurice than gay apologetics of the Mattachine society type. I struggle to understand why queer theorist so often reduce gay authors and stories to nothing but their sexuality, it strikes me as a disservice to the LGBT community. Although, I can understand that it probably arises from a desire to explore an aspect of these authors which had been ignored for so long.

I think most post-Stonewall explicitly gay literature is mostly crap anyway. I don't think any authors have risen out of the tradition that have moved beyond mere social commentary. I can appreciate the social criticism of the gay community in Larry Kramer's work but it's not really much more than that. The fact that almost 90% of the gay literature of the late 80s and early 90s is about AIDS kind of bores me as well.

[Jozanny]

About Woolf's Orlando, let me rephrase, as I am not finished reading the actual book, and the movie and the book do different things, as usual. I am in the chapter right before the change, and I assume the movie version is faithful to the sleep motif, but while Woolf is certainly using gender change as a device, her novel is not about a transgendered character, as we would see in that writer Veva likes; she has a thread on him buried somewhere, and my mind doesn't work like a search engine--in other words, Orlando is not engaging the realism of transgender the way Forster engages us with Maurice.

Here it is, the Eugenides fellow:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50024

But there is a great deal of difference between what he is doing and Woolf's satire.

PS: Pip, who is Stonewall?

[OrphanPip]

Stonewall was a 1969 riot in New York City's Greenwich Village, it is generally considered to mark the beginning of the modern gay rights movement in the USA and a seminal moment in the formation of gay identity.

Edit: Much of what we associate as gay culture today arose from the aftermath of that riot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

It makes a useful marker for the divide between the pre-Stonewall writers like Vidal and Baldwin, who are much less radical, than say a post-Stonewall writer like Edmund White.

The AIDS epidemic probably marks another defining moment in Western gay identity, you can see how much influence it has had on gay literature in pretty much any work from the late 80s.

[Jozanny]

Stonewall was a 1969 riot in New York City's Greenwich Village, it is generally considered to mark the beginning of the gay rights movement in the USA and a seminal moment in the formation of gay identity.

Edit: Much of what we associate as gay culture today arose from the aftermath of that riot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

It makes a useful marker for the divide between the pre-Stonewall writers like Vidal and Baldwin, who are much less radical, than say a post-Stonewall writer like Edmund White.

The AIDS epidemic probably marks another defining moment in Western gay identity, you can see how much influence it has had on gay literature in pretty much any work from the late 80s.

Thanks; I will check it out in a bit. I have a great deal to do this week and I need to end my stonewalling, as it were ;)

[johnw1]

I hope you don't mind my quoting this small portion of your post, but as I'm addressing the threads intended issue--homosexual motifs--and not The Great Gatsby specifically, this portion you wrote is the part most relevant to my point.

What I find odd, is not so much that a homosexual would write about homosexuality--Orphanpip pointed out well that heteros are "guilty" of the same thing, and that really this is to be expected, even desired, since we ask writers most often to write what they know--, I find it odd that someone would try and "fill in the gaps" of a text to a specific purpose. I don't think that homosexuals do this any more than heteros or Catholics or athiests, but I think it is dangerous to approach a text with the intent to find gaps that one may fill with their intended purpose (no sexual innuendo intended).

Most modern theorists have rested comfortably on the decision to approach texts as "open" and with "the death of the author" allow for an empowered reading. But there comes a degree in which, this seems not only fruitless and immature but almost itself the type of ideologic imperialism that English Departments condemn. Bringing to an author's text, the author being often not there to represent themselves, an idea that works against what appears to be the intended meaning is nothing less then deplorable. If you want a text so open that you can make your own meaning, find a dictionary and write your own books. Stop colonizing authors work for your own purposes.

Well speaking of myself, I didn't have an 'intended purpose' that I approached The Great Gatsby with. I didn't want to find homosexual desire in it and I didn't not want to either. I - at least consciously - merely read the book and asked myself what could be happening here and how could I best understand what's going on, with Nick being central to this. And I thought there were some bits of evidence that pointed in that direction, amongst other plausible, and more obvious, readings. I'm not trying to bring the discussion back to the specifics of TGG again just to illustrate where I'm coming from generally.

But of course, in a general sense, people do bring their own perspectives to reading. It's probably true to say that people's analysis of literature says at least as much about them as about the works themselves. Otherwise how could you explain the vast differences in interpretation? I think you would agree that most good literature has at least some ambiguity within it. This allows people to explore ideas using literature as a catalyst.

It's no problem that the author is not there to represent him/herself. If I say that Nick could be gay I'm not saying Fitzgerald intended this therefore what I'm saying does not reflect upon him. The question of what the author intended is interesting and for that we need to consider things like biographical details etc. But I don't see why we should limit ourselves to this. The text has a life of itself independent from the author. Reading The Great Gatsby I suspend disbelief and essentially pretend that Nick and the others are people with lives of their own and try to fill in the gaps of the information given in the text to understand them as best I can. I don't see how we can avoid filling in the gaps. Otherwise, as I said earlier in the thread, why not just ask the author to explain to us how we should read their book and leave it at that. To me that would be to reduce the power and worth of literature massively. I'm sorry if that is not what you mean, I don't want to attack a straw man here.

[Jozanny]

john, for the sake of argument, let's accept your premise: Nick and Jordan have latent homoerotic attractions to Gatsby/Daisy. I am still trying to understand how this changes the narrative arc of the text. Are we to assume Jay wasn't Daisy's first heart throb, and if so, why? Jordan is covering for her own desire and Tom beats Daisy out of suspicion?

And, while Nick may be *unreliable*, Fitzgerald, unlike James in his master works, doesn't leave me many cues to cause doubt about the truth of the matter.

I am still waiting to read from you how the homoerotic evidence changes the traditional interpretation of the novel. Ping me when you have something, as I am curious.

[kelby_lake]

john, for the sake of argument, let's accept your premise: Nick and Jordan have latent homoerotic attractions to Gatsby/Daisy. I am still trying to understand how this changes the narrative arc of the text. Are we to assume Jay wasn't Daisy's first heart throb, and if so, why? Jordan is covering for her own desire and Tom beats Daisy out of suspicion?

And, while Nick may be *unreliable*, Fitzgerald, unlike James in his master works, doesn't leave me many cues to cause doubt about the truth of the matter.

I am still waiting to read from you how the homoerotic evidence changes the traditional interpretation of the novel. Ping me when you have something, as I am curious.

It would mean that Nick and Jordan (when did Jordan come into this debate?) would be more hypocritical and would make their outsider status even greater. It would mean that Nick's romanticism is perhaps covering up facts about his own life.

There are no clues about James' or the character's sexuality in What Maisie Knew apart from the fact that the wife is a bit manly- hey, if we're using that as evidence, why not use Jordan?

[johnw1]

john, for the sake of argument, let's accept your premise: Nick and Jordan have latent homoerotic attractions to Gatsby/Daisy. I am still trying to understand how this changes the narrative arc of the text. Are we to assume Jay wasn't Daisy's first heart throb, and if so, why? Jordan is covering for her own desire and Tom beats Daisy out of suspicion?

And, while Nick may be *unreliable*, Fitzgerald, unlike James in his master works, doesn't leave me many cues to cause doubt about the truth of the matter.

I am still waiting to read from you how the homoerotic evidence changes the traditional interpretation of the novel. Ping me when you have something, as I am curious.

The only person in the novel who I've suggested may be gay is Nick. I don't see anything in there about Jordan or Daisy of Gatsby. I think Nick is fundamental because his narrative is the lens through which all the action is seen and we cannot ignore his psychology if we are to attempt to see through the fog of his narration (apologies for the mixed metaphors). Nick is unreliable. Very early on he displays this as he claims to 'reserve all judgments' before constantly making judgments upon all the characters, especially Gatsby. Instead of merely reporting action he tells us things he cannot possibly know - like Gatsby's inner thoughts for example. He knows that Tom has set Gatsby up by strongly implying to Myrtle's husband that Gatsby was Myrtle's lover. After his presence at Gatsby's funeral he shakes Tom's hand towards the end of their chance meeting despite knowing that he is largely to blame for Gatsby's death. He attends the inquest into Myrtle's death where the link to Daisy is never discovered. Nick knows and therefore is dishonest (you may say this is out of loyalty to Gatsby's intentions but he is unquestionably dishonest). Nick is therefore duplicitous in the whole sordid tale that he claims to be so disgusted with. There's plenty more in there. There's a lot more to Nick than he likes to suggest. Bearing in mind his duplicity and lies as well as his imaginative filling of the various gaps in his direct involvement, his character becomes absolutely central. Remember even the notion that Gatsby is somehow 'great' is merely a stated opinion of Nick's.

So, if Nick is sexually attracted to Gatsby this would change our understanding of his motivations in his actions and also in his narration and those things he withholds, obscures or embellishes upon; why he does so and how we are to take it. Is this why he obsessed with Gatsby? Is this why he attempts to understand the attractions of Daisy? Does he set them up together in order to enjoy vicariously a relationship with Gatsby? Remember him following them around. The whole time he is 'simultaneously enchanted and repelled'. Do his actions at the conclusion of the novel contain any elements of revenge and jealousy? Maybe he is retelling the story in this way to attempt to regain a feeling of control over himself and what happened and to assuage his guilt...

Anyway I'm not saying this is what I think but I reckon the possibility that he is romantically attached to Gatsby raises all these questions and more.

[kelby_lake]

There's a line in the novel where Nick's talking about Gatsby, and he says: 'His life had been confused and disordered since then, but if he could once return to a certain starting place and go over it all slowly, he could find out what that thing was.'

Is that what Nick's doing?

[johnw1]

There's a line in the novel where Nick's talking about Gatsby, and he says: 'His life had been confused and disordered since then, but if he could once return to a certain starting place and go over it all slowly, he could find out what that thing was.'

Is that what Nick's doing?

Yes that quote does seem to fit Nick. The Great Gatsby is metafictional in that it draws attention to the process of writing itself. Nick says something like 'Gatsby, the man who gives his name to this book' at one stage, reminding us that he is self consciously involved in the act of writing. So I think we are to look at the process itself, why he tells the story as he does and what purpose does it serve him. Telling the story is a way of regaining control over his life and is perhaps cathartic in that he can sort through what happened and why and what role he played in it - although he doesn't seem to succeed.

[kelby_lake]

Exactly. I think it's sort of an exorcision attempt; Nick doesn't want to end up like Gatsby, unable to let go. Daisy, Tom, Jordan and basically all the characters in the book except Wilson and Nick, are able to cut ties and move on.

[ktr]

Exactly. I think it's sort of an exorcision attempt; Nick doesn't want to end up like Gatsby, unable to let go. Daisy, Tom, Jordan and basically all the characters in the book except Wilson and Nick, are able to cut ties and move on.

first of all "exorcision" is not even a word. secondly, you are wrong. that's the beauty he finds in gatsby and what he rejects about tom and daisy's carelessness and how he sees that in himself, to a lesser degree, but still. it is his ability to love that makes all of his faults, however ridiculous, forgivable - and conversely, how all of daisy's positive attributes are completely negated by her shallow indifference.

{edit}

[MrRegular]

Mags count? Because I saw this issue of STUD that had quite a few homosexual 'motifs'.

[kelby_lake]

first of all "exorcision" is not even a word. secondly, you are wrong. that's the beauty he finds in gatsby and what he rejects about tom and daisy's carelessness and how he sees that in himself, to a lesser degree, but still. it is his ability to love that makes all of his faults, however ridiculous, forgivable - and conversely, how all of daisy's positive attributes are completely negated by her shallow indifference.

{edit}

Exorcism- that's what I meant. And thank you for telling me I'm wrong. Obviously you have some special insight into this book that means you can tell me that.

And Nick doesn't think that Gatsby is actually in love with Daisy- it's only the dream of her. He admires Gatsby's hope and persistance which he believes makes up for some pretty bad stuff. But I don't think every reader is equally convinced by that or that Fitzgerald is implying that people should gloss over bad things.

[ktr]

Exorcism- that's what I meant. And thank you for telling me I'm wrong. Obviously you have some special insight into this book that means you can tell me that.

And Nick doesn't think that Gatsby is actually in love with Daisy- it's only the dream of her. He admires Gatsby's hope and persistance which he believes makes up for some pretty bad stuff. But I don't think every reader is equally convinced by that or that Fitzgerald is implying that people should gloss over bad things.

why are you even bringing up whether he actually loves her or not in response to my post? you oppose a viewpoint of mine that i never expressed, it completely detracts from the point at hand. if you want to discuss that subsequently or as another facet of the book, whatever - but to bring it up here as a rebuttal or sorts is ridiculous.