Is Nick gay (or bisexual)?

well, i think it's not so obvious, but if you read it over, it says that mr. mckee was "clad in his underwear," and our lit class discussed this scene, cause it was a bit weird, lol... but we basically realized that mckee and nick got drunk, they went to mckee's house and they did it , and mckee shows him pictures from his portfolio, because we already read that mckee is a photographer... and the "beauty and the beast..." are all the pictures he took... nick may not have deliberately had sex with mckee, as they were drunk, but throughout the novel, it kinda seems that he sort of a has the personality of a homosexual (no offense), cause he's not that very strong, and he's way more sensitive than most guys i know, he tells the story with a lot of detail, and he feels connected to gatsby, almost interested in him. i think someone before said something about nick only liking jordan because she was masculine... i agree with that, cause when nick first meets jordan, thats what he notices... so yeah, this is what i think, at the most he's probably bisexual, thats what our class thought when he discussed nick's sexuality...

considering Fitzgerald's style of writing, if Nick was gay, he would have made it a bit more obvious and there would be more quotes, however, i too got the impression that he went to bed with the guy.

I took that bit where he's in McKee's bedroom to mean he had passed out, because the of the passage after:

Quote:

---

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.

---

I don't think he's gay, there would have been more clues in the novel if he was...

I'm pretty sure that the passage in Chapter 2 hints that they did it, or at least did something. After all, it cuts from an offer to go to lunch to them suddenly in the guy's bedroom. It's purposely ambiguous because if he had been any more descriptive, we'd all be scandalised and it would have overshadowed the novel.

And of course Nick has to be near Gatsby a lot in order for him to narrate the novel but there's still something a bit creepy. Nick tells Gatsby off for having an obsession but Nick is a bit obsessive too.


* "They're a rotten crowd," I shouted across the lawn. "You're worth the whole damn bunch put together."
I’ve always been glad I said that. It was the only compliment I ever gave him, because I disapproved of him from beginning to end.

This is basically your airport moment. It's basically an 'I love you'

I do not mean to be obstinate, but I think reading TTG along the lines of new age homoerotic revisionism goes against the narrative angles of the novel, and does not in fact complete or compliment any undercurrent within the text.

Now, this doesn't mean that Fitzgerald doesn't leave odds and ends which aren't curious, and not worth chewing on--and I read the novel so long ago that finishing it over the course of these few weeks made it feel fresh, but I do not see an argument for the freedom of gay relationships in the book.

I grant that Nick isn't macho man, and I will even grant that Hemingway was impatient with the pathos of Fitz's touchy feely newspaper columns, but I think the undertow of the book leads elsewhere. We don't know what the obscene word was that Nick scratched off the step with his foot, but I do not think *faggot* was in use at the time of the novel's currency, and I don't think it matters what the word might have been; it signifies that Gatsby went from celebrated to ostricized, all in the course of protecting Daisy from her crime, and maybe Jay's possible exposure as a gangster.

Tom's racism as an obviously jarring note, that I cannot quite put my finger on, unless Fitzgerald was doing it to diminish a powerful character, but for me, the homoerotic subtext just doesn't fit, not even with the elevator episode--the men were drunk; they saw Tom seriously hurt his lover, did nothing to stop him, and that scene most likely evinces a cowardice they were trying to efface.

I went back and took another look at the elevator scene, and I think the younger generation, so immersed in identity coding, forgets to consider Fitzgerald's era.

Think of the locker room with the buddy bonding between jocks, and that is what is going on with Nick and his fellows. McKee is drunk, Nick helps him undress just like the Three Musketeers cut off each others boots. The key to the chapter is the portfolio with McKee's pictures--this is what the novel is pointing to.

I persist in debunking the same sex undercurrent not because I am a prude, but because it doesn't serve our responsibilities toward textual interpretation.
Beauty and The Beast is a fairytale about the incredible faith that is placed on love--something that Daisy fails. The bridge is both an escape route and a failed exit, and the Old Grocery Horse is the faithful, if lonely husband, that McKee represents.

This novel is about the lie of the American dream, not the secret coda behind homosexual unions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robfearon

'Come to lunch some day,' he suggested, as we groaned down 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 lower level of the Pennsylvania Station, staring at the morning Tribune, and waiting for the four o'clock train.

---

I think a close reading of the text does a lot to support the notion that Nick is bi/homosexual. For one thing, the lever strikes me as a phallic symbol. Furthermore, the hushed and racy feeling of the scene, the abrupt transitions through ellipses, the fact that Nick stayed the night (or at least until 4 AM), are all conscious decisions on Fitzgerald's part. How could he write these into the chapter without realizing what they suggest? He was, after all, one who re-wrote almost compulsively. He must have re-read (and perhaps re-written) this chapter many times.

I disagree with your assertion that homosexuality has nothing to do with the undercurrent of the novel. I think it would help explain Nick's character very much - Nick is a spectator, much like Jacob Barnes in The Sun Also Rises - and homosexuals, along with impotents, were often written into Modernist novels to play the part of spectators.

You can also read The Great Gatsby along the lines of masculinity, in which homosexuality would play a part. There are several contests of masculine authority in the novel (between Tom and Gatsby, Tom and George Wilson) and Nick plays a passive side-line role in all these struggles; in other words, his masculinity is absent. He does not interfere when Tom strikes Myrtle - the 'manly' thing would be to interfere. He is also not involved in any of the contests over women. Nick shares a lot with the homosexual.

Mr. McKee is also placed in the same capacity. He is described in Chapter 2 as a "pale, feminine man". He is said to be in the "artist's game"; it is interesting how the two most artistically-minded characters in the novel, Nick (by virtue of narration) and Mr. McKee (in light of his photography) are also the two most passive, feminine men in the novel. His body language is also effeminate - he appraises Mrs. Wilson's dress "with his head on one side, [moving] his hand back and forth slowly in front of his face" (Chapter 2). And then there is the inexplicable, effeminate preoccupation that Nick has with the lather on Mr. McKee's face which "had worried [him] all afternoon" (Chapter 2). Nick ends up wiping the lather from Mr. McKee's cheek while he is dozing, which is an odd thing for one man to do for another.

I really don't think it's a coincidence that these two characters are so effeminate, and are placed alone together in a scene at 4 AM where one man is in his underwear, getting out of bed. There is no shortage of evidence to support it and, as I have argued, it also does much to explain the characters. There are more themes to The Great Gatsby than the American Dream; there are also themes of actor/spectator, masculinity, etc.

I think that everyone is missing the point that Fitzgerald is trying to impress. He was writing about the decline and fall of the 2nd Roman empire as he saw post war America. What he is showing with Nick's seemingly easy going way in regards to his sexuality i.e. straight, gay or bi; was to convey the air of total hedonism that existed is the Jazz Society of the period. Nicks brief affair with the effeminate man from the party(as FSF described him) was no different than his affair with the woman from his firm or the eluded to fiance back west; it suited his wants at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktm5124

You can also read The Great Gatsby along the lines of masculinity, in which homosexuality would play a part. There are several contests of masculine authority in the novel (between Tom and Gatsby, Tom and George Wilson) and Nick plays a passive side-line role in all these struggles; in other words, his masculinity is absent. He does not interfere when Tom strikes Myrtle - the 'manly' thing would be to interfere. He is also not involved in any of the contests over women. Nick shares a lot with the homosexual.

---

Meh, it's a heterosexist presumption to read effeminacy in men as inherently homosexual. If Nick lacks an active will to interfere, and we want to typify this as being a quality of effeminacy, it does nothing to support a reading of him as homosexual beyond merely reinforcing prejudices. You're also ignoring the fact that Nick is a war veteran. Moreover, to draw so much significance on his passivity is to ignore the relative passivity of almost every character in the novel apart from Gatsby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktm5124

Mr. McKee is also placed in the same capacity. He is described in Chapter 2 as a "pale, feminine man". He is said to be in the "artist's game"; it is interesting how the two most artistically-minded characters in the novel, Nick (by virtue of narration) and Mr. McKee (in light of his photography) are also the two most passive, feminine men in the novel. His body language is also effeminate - he appraises Mrs. Wilson's dress "with his head on one side, [moving] his hand back and forth slowly in front of his face" (Chapter 2). And then there is the inexplicable, effeminate preoccupation that Nick has with the lather on Mr. McKee's face which "had worried [him] all afternoon" (Chapter 2). Nick ends up wiping the lather from Mr. McKee's cheek while he is dozing, which is an odd thing for one man to do for another.

I really don't think it's a coincidence that these two characters are so effeminate, and are placed alone together in a scene at 4 AM where one man is in his underwear, getting out of bed. There is no shortage of evidence to support it and, as I have argued, it also does much to explain the characters. There are more themes to The Great Gatsby than the American Dream; there are also themes of actor/spectator, masculinity, etc.

---

I'm not sure this isn't an anachronistic reading as well as being heterosexist. Effeminacy has been used historically to paint a male character as inferior to other males, but not really to codify homosexuality that often until the 50s onward. Was there something sexual that occurred? Maybe. Even so, this does not make Nick gay. Nick makes reference to past relationships with women, and pursues a superficial relationship with Jordan. Would Fitzgerald share our contemporary medicalized definitions of sexuality as inherent to a person's "true self" rather than a matter of self-identity or merely a matter of action. Are we to assume that Fitzgerald didn't just consider the supposed homosexual act as an immoral action of debauchery and it was just yet another condemnation of these characters.

The case for Nick being gay, in the sense that he held a sexual identity, or even a desire to pursue exclusively male sexual relationships, doesn't pan out from the textual evidence as far as I'm concerned.

i think the whole idea that "Nick was engaged to a woman at the start of the book, so he cant be gay or bi-sexual" is a very weak reading of the whole premise. Surely if the chapter is trying to tell us anything, it is that many people during this period and in this social circle were living double lives. Just because Nick was once engaged and seems to find women attractive still, doesnt mean that he doesn't harbour gay or bisexual (albeit, repressed) feelings. Think of the time period! Of course he is not going to be open about any homoerotic feelings he has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by livwheat101

i think the whole idea that "Nick was engaged to a woman at the start of the book, so he cant be gay or bi-sexual" is a very weak reading of the whole premise. Surely if the chapter is trying to tell us anything, it is that many people during this period and in this social circle were living double lives. Just because Nick was once engaged and seems to find women attractive still, doesnt mean that he doesn't harbour gay or bisexual (albeit, repressed) feelings. Think of the time period! Of course he is not going to be open about any homoerotic feelings he has.

---

Agreed. I think that Nick is just as directionless as all the other characters. He may know what they are but he doesn't know himself. The effect of the war also produced a totally different modern society, the possibility of breaking away from the conventional life-long marriage.

Nick is certainly meant to be effeminate. Whether this is to show his insecurity in his own masculinity or whether it's an indication of his sexuality is debatable. Gatsby shows slight effeminacy but there's no indication to suggest that he's homosexual.

There is not enough evidence either way. Nick was a reserved man and he cared about people. Mr. McKee was intoxicated as well and it could be that he was moreso than Nick. I've babysat drunks before as well. He was STANDING beside the bed while underwear-clad McKee sat UP in his bed, showing Nick his photographs. I can't picture the hypothetical dialogue:

McKee: Want to have sex, then look at pictures?
Nick: Sure, but I have to be at Penn Station by 4am....:rolleyes:

Nick liked Jordans "jaunty" athletic body. He liked her celebrity status at first, then it became annoying to him and finally, he learned of her dishonesty and that turned him off. He also seemed a bit jealous when Gatsby spoke of Nick talking with Jordan.

When Gatsby died, Nick was there to take care of things. He wanted others to care, but they simply didn't. I don't think this automatically means that he was sexually attracted to Gatsby.

I'm astonished at how naive folks are about sexuality. Just because Nick was engaged to a woman doesn't make him straight. Just because he finds Jordan attractive doesn't mean he would want to or be able to have sex with her. He's obviously a very conflicted man, as was Fitzgerald. (The whole rivalry with Hemingway? The fascination with Gerald Murphy? Please . . . .) As for claiming Fitzgerald would have made Nick a more obviously gay character if he'd meant for him to be gay, well, that is some faulty logic there. The novel was written in the 1920s, and homosexuality wasn't treated so openly in the literature of the time. It took subtle imagery-- and some not so subtle imagery, in the case of the elevator handle-- and implications of character "flaws" like effeminacy to get the subtext across. Oh, and having your characters be drunk also helped.

Thank you, ktm5124, for the most intelligent post on this subject.

Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimNKnoxville

Thank you, ktm5124, for the most intelligent post on this subject.

---

What? All they did is imply that Nick is effeminate, and then equate effeminacy with homosexuality.

You're the one who is being naive about sexuality, because straight men can and sometimes do have sex with other men, and gay men can and do sometimes have sex with women. Otherwise, I would know far less 50 year old gay men with kids and prison sex would imply an unusually high crime rate amongst closeted homosexuals. Come on, :rolleyes:.

It's baseless speculation and entirely superficial to imply that Nick is gay because he is obsessed with Gatsby, well he's the narrator and he's the vehicle for telling the story so if he wasn't obsessed with Gatsby the story wouldn't be very interesting. What does interpreting Nick as a gay character do for the interpretation of the story? Practically nothing. So what is the point.

Just finished reading the book, and I think that nick is somewhat gay. Most people here seem to understand that being gay, is black or white or gray for bisexuality. In truth it is far more complicated than that. Everyone is partly gay, some people a lot more and some people less. We are all able to appreciate and recognize the beauty of individuals from our same sex, that in itself is a form of gayness so to say. It is really a spectrum and there are hundreds of stages in said spectrum not just 3: gay, straight or bi.

As for nick I think he is gay, but he is not sure of it himself, or rather he is very conflicted about it. In those times not only was homosexuality not accepted, it was considered a disease and a Moral Choice, like making the moral choice to steal or kill. The notion that homosexuality is simply the way we are not a choice is a modern idea.

Nick is attracted to Jordan and even Daisy, but he is incapable of falling in love with them. I think that the scene in question shows that Nick had sex with McKee. But Nick seems unable to conceive of himself as gay, his inability to love the women in his life is never attributed to himself as due to his homosexuality.

Also I disagree that Nick was in love with Gatsby. Lets face it if a straight guy can have a strong bond of friendship with a girl, a gay man can have it with another man. I think he does come to love Gatsby, but in a non-sexual way, he loves him as a friend - he admires him and is compelled to him due to pathos. The "your better than the lot of them" is not a expression of love, Gatsby just spent the entire night telling Nick the Truth about himself, something which no one knew - Nick's reaction is that of someone who feel's a strong bond because a huge barrier has been ripped down by Gatsby when he told him his true story. I am sure we can all think of moment in life when someone has truly opened up to you and they went from being a friend to a True friend, simply because that barrier has been removed.


I am sorry to disagree with you OrphanPip, but stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. Those effeminate men you see walking around in big cities, with feminine postures and manner of clothing are more likely to be gay than straight. I'm not saying that all gay men are effeminate, or all effeminate men are gay, but effeminacy is a common trait of gay men.

Then again you seem to see effeminacy is a derogatory trait, I don't particularly think it so, it is simply a manner of being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

I am sorry to disagree with you OrphanPip, but stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. Those effeminate men you see walking around in big cities, with feminine postures and manner of clothing are more likely to be gay than straight. I'm not saying that all gay men are effeminate, or all effeminate men are gay, but effeminacy is a common trait of gay men.

Then again you seem to see effeminacy is a derogatory trait, I don't particularly think it so, it is simply a manner of being.

---

I didn't say it was, I said that ktm's interpretation of effeminacy was misguided and unlikely to codify homosexuality in the period. Especially, in the context of a Modernist reaction against decadence and feminine aesthetics that you can find equally in the works of Pound, Eliot, and Hemingway without any need to bring in sexuality.

The passivity of Nick is not abnormal in the novel, it is a common trait of pretty much all the characters.

And I've already tried to address the problem of applying a post-1960s concept of sexual identity to an early 20th century medicalized paradigm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

I didn't say it was, I said that ktm's interpretation of effeminacy was misguided and unlikely to codify homosexuality in the period.

---

I think to an extent effeminacy might have been a bit of a code back then, when people had perhaps more narrow views of sexuality and if you weren't a big macho man, there was something a little bit suss about you.

I agree with Alexander III about there being a spectrum of sexuality and with the general agreement that Nick does not have sexual feelings for Gatsby. Nick does not really seem capable of forming satisfying relationships with women- perhaps there is a bit of confusion there.

I agree with Kelby_lake on every thing she said, and with DrBobCat. But isn't asking this particular question kid of missing the point? If Nick did indeed do something sexual with Mr. McKee, wouldn't a better question be why? Why would Fitzgerald allude to this? What purpose does it serve in the greater scheme of things?

My feeling is that Nick was for the most part an observer, and throughout the course of the novel he is, like a scientist with a microscope and a perti dish, observing this particular group of people at close hand. On the one side there is Gatsby and his wild parties and his incurable romanticism, and on the other there are the Buchanan's, their Valley of Ashes, their immense wealth and barren emotional lives, and their decadence.

In the end, who was more decadent in this Jazz Age? Compare Gatsby's party:

"The lights grow brighter as the earth lurches away from the sun, and now the orchestra is playing yellow cocktail music, and the opera of voices pitches a key higher. Laughter is easier minute by minute, spilled with prodigality, tipped out at a cheerful word. The groups change more swiftly, swell with new arrivals, dissolve and form in the same breath; already there are wanderers, confident girls who weave here and there among the stouter and more stable, become for a sharp, joyous moment the centre of a group, and then, excited with triumph, glide on through the sea-change of faces and voices and color under the constantly changing light.

Suddenly one of the gypsies, in trembling opal, seizes a cocktail out of the air, dumps it down for courage and, moving her hands like Frisco, dances out alone on the canvas platform. A momentary hush; the orchestra leader varies his rhythm obligingly for her, and there is a burst of chatter as the erroneous news goes around that she is Gilda Gray’s understudy from the FOLLIES. The party has begun.

I believe that on the first night I went to Gatsby’s house I was one of the few guests who had actually been invited. People were not invited — they went there. They got into automobiles which bore them out to Long Island, and somehow they ended up at Gatsby’s door. Once there they were introduced by somebody who knew Gatsby, and after that they conducted themselves according to the rules of behavior associated with amusement parks. Sometimes they came and went without having met Gatsby at all, came for the party with a simplicity of heart that was its own ticket of admission.

And Tom's:

"The bottle of whiskey — a second one — was now in constant demand by all present, excepting Catherine, who “felt just as good on nothing at all.” Tom rang for the janitor and sent him for some celebrated sandwiches, which were a complete supper in themselves. I wanted to get out and walk southward toward the park through the soft twilight, but each time I tried to go I became entangled in some wild, strident argument which pulled me back, as if with ropes, into my chair. Yet high over the city our line of yellow windows must have contributed their share of human secrecy to the casual watcher in the darkening streets, and I was him too, looking up and wondering. I was within and without, simultaneously enchanted and repelled by the inexhaustible variety of life."

At Tom's party, perhaps Nick partook of the decadence of the the era; perhaps in the end, it was part of what he found wanting in these people who supposedly had it all. Perhaps that was why it was Gatsby, with his extraordinary gift for hope and his romantic readiness, who "turned out all right in the end."

Gatsby, the novel, is after all, a coming of age story, and the person who came of age was Nick. So while he was the narrator, a part that usually seems distant from the action, it is his own conclusions that profoundly change him, and not any others in the story.

He certainly could be trying to figure out his sexual identity. And it wouldn't be the first time that drink and shared emotional intensity led to passion. I think of the scene in Y Tu Mama Tambien where Tenoch and Julio shared a kiss and maybe something more.

To move this thread a bit more, if Nick was represented as sexually ambiguous, why did Fitzgerald portray him as such? For what purpose?

Going to bump this thread a bit more, for such a great novel I would have hoped more discussion around it.

A man's finding masculinity attractive in a woman does not equate with being gay or bi. No more than a woman finding a man's femininity attractive means that the woman is gay or bi. Nor do I see anything in this passage, possible homoerotic subtext notwithstanding, that suggests an activated or important erotic interest in men on Nick's part. Moreover, some might find in Nick a semi-autobiographical voice, suggested by his midwestern origins and reflective character, and Fitzgerald, as far as I know, was straight. Zelda herself, who was I believe bi, may have had some masculine traits, albeit mingled with traditional southern feminine qualities.

When I read this passage I definitely thought Nick's character had enjoyed a night of drunken gay sex. Is Nick gay though? I wouldn't say so, but I would say he was definitely bi, at least. Nick's obvious admiration for Jordan, Daisy, Gatbsy, and even some of his descriptions of Tom have a sensuous quality to them. When it comes to Gatsby, Nick keeps going back and forth between extremes of love and hate for him, and in the end, he sticks by Gatsby's side despite him having been accomplice to the Myrtle's murder. No, Nick may not have been explicit about his sexuality, but during such a time of raucous-everything, it's hard to delineate the limits of sexuality/love/lust, even.

NO! Nick is NOT gay! Why does everyone try to read homosexuality into great works? I feel like everyone who says that he is gay needs to reread the book without preconceived notions and just read the book for the book. Putting together passages like this will of course make you think that, but seriously, reread the book. He's NOT gay and there is no real evidence of it stated. Fitzgerald would have said it straight out and not have been cryptic.

I don't at what point in college lit crit it became mandatory to show that everything written is to be studied from the perspective that every word means something different than it is seems to mean. Then, the less imaginative instructors found an easy way to find such hidden meaning: it always peertained to Marxism, Freudianism, Gay-Lesbian issues, etc.
Boring. BORING.

Sure, Nick Carroway might have been gay. He might also have been Afro-American, a Hungarian Jew, an alien, a bug who woke up one morning and found himself transformed into a human, naive WASP living next door to Gatsby.

Could Nick have been a middle American type, Fitzgerald's major audience in the 1920s, who described Gatsby strange, louche world to his middle American cohorts, Jordan and Wolfstein included?

By the way, a "boyish" figure for a woman was quite desirable and sexy for men in the roaring twenties.. Also, the tough immigrant types (Jews, Irish, Italian) who would have been running elevators in those days would have had no trouble insulting and threatening any fool of any social class who tried to mess with their controls.

I think Fitzgerald was straight, but may have had some homosexual tendencies and this came out in his writing. I personally never thought Nick was gay, but I need to reread the book.

I don't think that Nick is gay or that the lever is necessarily a phallic symbol, but I think Mr McKee might be.

I think it is wrong for someone to disagree with something that another person says on here because of course, these are all just interpretations and should be considered and respected just as people would wish their own interpretation to be.
I personally think that Nick is bisexual, in the first chapter he describes Tom's physical appearance in great detail, talking about how the muscles in his shoulders are shifting and admiring his appearance. However I can see how people would disagree with this as it would almost seem as if he is just jealous of his appearance.
I could also point out that the 'moustache of sweat' on a woman could show that he found the masculine feature in her attractive which ultimately could lead to him being bisexual.
I can see how the context will effect this gay/bisexual theory, however, maybe this is why it is only suggested rather than said openly almost like how Keats implies things in his poems because he wasn't able to say it at the time.
I look forward to any further theories on this gay/bisexual insight into the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

To move this thread a bit more, if Nick was represented as sexually ambiguous, why did Fitzgerald portray him as such? For what purpose?

---

He didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

He didn't.

---

You must be a frequentor at many parties, with that maginificent witt and verbal flamboyance of yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

You must be a frequentor at many parties, with that maginificent witt and verbal flamboyance of yours.

---

I'm serious. There is no indication, except in the minds of those who want to read it into the text, of Nick Carraway as being anything other than someone who is a little out of his depth among those of both Gatsby's and Daisy's circles
He is not only the narrator but also an uneasy bystander who is forced to take sides in something he would rather not have become involved with. Hence, his hesitancy with Jordan Baker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fishbowl123

I think it is wrong for someone to disagree with something that another person says on here because of course, these are all just interpretations

---

I completely disagree. I never do nor will claim any objective truth when it comes to literary interpretation, but the view that anything goes is just as bad, and produces the "Wolf Larson" effect in the field of literary analysis.

There is a difference between formulating a new theory based on great evidence from the text, and taking a few sentences out of context (which many in this thread have done) to "prove" something that, whether it is there or not, has no relevancy in the story.

I don't believe Nick is gay or bisexual, but even if I accepted the pitiful "evidence" offered in these threads, the fact is that Nick's sexuality has nothing to do with the story. If Gatsby was gay (which I have also seen argued) then there might be more of an impact on the story, given that his attraction to Daisy is a key point. But who gives a damn who Nick is attracted to?

I think it goes back to the author- that Fitzgerald was probably somewhat bisexual. I don't think he acted on it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buh4Bee

I think it goes back to the author- that Fitzgerald was probably somewhat bisexual. I don't think he acted on it though.

---

Once again this is pure conjecture and until something more definite by way of authentication turns up, it will remain so. The words 'probably' and 'somewhat' give little credence to the suggestion.

Sure, Emil, there isn't any documented evidence. However, in his autobiography, This Side of Paradise, he makes a pretty explicit reference to wanting to flash a male bellhop when in a hotel room at the end of the book. It seemed a bit off. Oh sorry, used another indefinite term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buh4Bee

Sure, Emil, there isn't any documented evidence. However, in his autobiography, This Side of Paradise, he makes a pretty explicit reference to wanting to flash a male bellhop when in a hotel room at the end of the book. It seemed a bit off. Oh sorry, used another indefinite term.

---

Well I have read This Side of Paradise and don't recall the incident you refer to, but I will check it out and get back to you on it.

I can't believe this thread is ongoing. That is how much people want to see gay in everything. Emil is right, it has no bearing on the story. The book was written in 1925, or very close to that year. I have read The Great Gatsby twice, and I wasn't looking for any homosexuality in the story-probably because there is none, it doesn't matter, and isn't relevant. I also didn't know that This Side of Paradise was considered an autobiography.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KCurtis

I can't believe this thread is ongoing. That is how much people want to see gay in everything. Emil is right, it has no bearing on the story. The book was written in 1925, or very close to that year. I have read The Great Gatsby twice, and I wasn't looking for any homosexuality in the story-probably because there is none, it doesn't matter, and isn't relevant. I also didn't know that This Side of Paradise was considered an autobiography.

---

Well. it's not an autobiography, as such, but it is based on Fitzgerald's early years and specifically those of his time at Princeton. However, since there seems to be a determination on the part of some to impute homosexuality to his works, it will be necessary to refute it where such imputation is unsustainable by what is currently known about the writer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

Well. it's not an autobiography, as such, but it is based on Fitzgerald's early years and specifically those of his time at Princeton. However, since there seems to be a determination on the part of some to impute homosexuality to his works, it will be necessary to refute it where such imputation is unsustainable by what is currently known about the writer.

---

Okay, fair enough. The homosexuality thing is so puzzling to me- the fixation of it takes away from the stories, in my opinion.

Fair enough, and I agree with you, Kay!