Dysphemisms and Diatribes: Why I Didn't Enjoy 'The Great Gatsby' As Much As I Thought I Would

It has to be said that The Great Gatsby is one of the most well-known classics of all time, and I felt quite guilty for not having read it earlier! But I had this beautiful hardback copy bought for me as a Christmas gift, so I thought: if not now, when? (I fall in love very easily with beautiful book covers- this one was navy blue, with elements of gold, pastel blue, and patterns of cream interwoven in symmetrical, rigid patterns, probably to reinforce fixed ideologies such as social structure, hierarchy etc that was prevalent at the time).

What I enjoyed the most about The Great Gatsby was the exposition including Nick's seeming hyperawareness of customs and the psychology of young men and women of the time; in the exposition of the book Nick describes the 'intimate revelations of young men' as often 'plagiaristic and marred by obvious suppressions'. With Nick acting as a mouthpiece for Fitzgerald, contemporary readers would likely see the oppressive binaries that many young men (particularly those of a higher class) must pertain to, and Nick recognises that the people of this time often suffered from a mental bankruptcy, as if they would never truly recover from the things they had seen upon the battlefield as well as the economic losses leaving many stranded, desperate to make their fortune. It is hinted throughout the book that very little social progress has been made since WW1, with black people mentioned often as a source of worry for 'submerging the white race', as well as Daisy's lack of responsibility for the car crash that conveniently claimed the life of her husband's mistress. We see a society, that should have learnt from its mistakes, pitting races and countries against each other as the white middle classes grasping at the vacancy of superiority- which as Nick describes, is certainly plagiaristic of the Victorian era- with many of those who enforced societal rules and those who campaigned for change wiped out by the war, this generation exists in a limbo of picking up the pieces of ancestral wealth and the birth of revolutionary ideas- women's suffrage in the West, and Marxism-Leninism in the East. We see the nouveau-riche embodied by Jay Gatsby, formerly the poor boy James Gatz, driven to make his own way in life and making unthinkable amounts of money, which he lauds almost exuberantly via his luxurious parties, by which he desperately hopes to win back the southern belle Daisy.

With Nick's introduction immediately criticising the euphemistic tendencies of the upper classes, as well as an awareness of his own privilege, a modern reader may be waiting expectantly for Nick to untie the genteelisms that many of his peers will use, as well as the psychological drives behind each character. Yet very irritably, Nick becomes hypocritical in dissecting this aspect. The Great Gatsby is a slow read, despite being a short novella, and Nick is slow to analyse the personalities of many characters, portraying Miss Baker as an austere woman 'completely motionless', and then quickly transitioning to her being a ‘jaunty’ athlete, which appears to be a poor attempt at feminist advocacy from Fitzgerald. Miss Baker’s preference for the male dominion of sport over the duties of a housewife is rarely discussed; is all treated as fact rather than an incredulous idea for the time period. I think my expectations for Daisy were probably too high- after expecting a woman to fill pages and pages deliberating about the anxieties of choosing between the parvenu gentleman and the bulky, uncouth husband with a mistress, I was confounded to read that her reasonings took less than three pages to become decisive- and all that was considered was her domestic safety with Tom Buchanan compared to her teenage love for Gatsby- no analytical thought is described by Nick, and readers are left to suppose Daisy's intentions, as well as the fact that it is not confirmed whether Daisy and Gatsby had pre-marital and extra-marital relations since Nick's passive character lacks integrity and interrogation- Nick details irrelevant conversations such as Daisy describing tales involving a 'butler's nose'. Not unlike Blanche from 'A Streetcar Named Desire', Daisy personifies the bubble-wrapped privileges of the upper class young women, as she speaks childishly and does not attempt to take responsibility for her actions at any point. Yet Nick does not concern himself with those details either- he himself adopts the perspective of the male gaze when describing Jordan Baker's 'hard, jaunty body', one among many of the frankly uninteresting details (and MANY anecdotes) that impede a reader's progress when trying to make sense of the narrative. Of course, many critics of this interpretation will argue that the point of the Great Gatsby was not its narrative at all and was intended rather to reflect the middle-class caprices, will call it 'misunderstood', but if The Great Gatsby was supposed to be a microcosm for societal problems at the time with an omniscient narrator, why are the most important details abandoned for both contemporary and modern readers to scrutinise? Where are the endless descriptions of Gatsby's vibrant parties and the behaviours of their individual guests? Why can Nick, a self-proclaimed man who appears to have the intention of understanding the motives of others, struggle so much to even attempt to detail the framework of his cousin Daisy's inner conflicts and mixed emotions due to the stakes of her reputation and tragic lover?

Granted, I was expecting the story to be laced with euphemisms, which it was. But I am wholly against a narrator who, as a character himself, does not progress as a person nor provides theological clarity as a vital part of the story, despite being a witness who can remember the most negligible details of conversation.