Elizabeth Steuerwald
Mr. Jennings
Honors English III
2/22/13
Literary Criticism: Oxymoron and Paradoxes in Gatsby
In Peter L. Hays’ “Oxymoron in
The Great Gatsby
”, Hays puts forth the idea that Gatsby, the book as well as the titular character himself, is representative of America’s contradictory nature.
The paradoxes in the book are also represented by the use of oxymoron of which Fitzgerald frequently peppers throughout the novel; the example Hays gives in the first paragraph is
Wolfsheim being described as eating with “ferocious delicacy” (75) and many more examples are used from the book to further prove his thesis. Fitzgerald saw contradictions in American society and recorded them. Nowhere is this more evident than in the 1920s; America was rapidly changing during this time, but it was still very conservative—but one paradox. Gatsby is a paradox, clinging to the idea that through hard work he can achieve his dream and that his newfound wealth will erase the social gap between him and Daisy. Two classic American myths are represented with this last sentence: that with hard work one can do anything and that America is a classless society; both, of course, are untrue, as the book itself proves. Old money also insists on its social superiority to nouveaux riches and the nouveaux riches are compared to non-
“Nordic” races in that they both threaten old money and the old order. The nouveaux riche
Gatsby is technically a criminal, but this was not rare back then, as the line between business and criminal enterprise was thin and blurred, often resulting in the two mixing and leading to widespread corruption. Other characters have their contradictions as well; particular attention is payed to Nick. The Great Gatsby is also an “assault” on the athletes of Fitzgerald’s time with the

characters of Tom and Jordan, two immoral athletes who are the complete opposite of the fictional character of Frank Merriwell, whose stories promoted high morals and fair play, as well as the fact that sports writers kept the more unsavory aspects of athletes’ private lives from the public to protect said athletes’ image as role models.
Most of Hays’ claims are solid and can be supported with a mound of evidence from the novel. In fact, on a few points there is little room to disagree with, such as Gatsby thinking his new-found wealth will erase the social gap between him and Daisy and that old money thinks it is superior to new money. Hays makes a lot of good, sound points that just couldn’t fit into the first paragraph due to the length (which is probably too long as it is). On these points I agree with
Hays completely and have little to add to this part of the conversation, but other points are interesting and sometimes it seems like Hays is just rambling before he gets to his main point that makes sense by itself and didn’t need the rambling build-up.
For example, most of the second paragraph comes across as a wandering mess about
Gatsby’s love life, but the central claim and the paragraph’s end make complete sense, but the middle, to me, doesn’t. The central claim is that one example of doubleness in the novel, specifically Gatsby, is how he approaches Daisy. It seems baffling to Hays that Gatsby, who he builds up as a Casanova in his traveling days with Dan Cody, is shy and awkward toward Daisy, especially since he knows her and has already slept with her. To me, this comes across a man bashing another man for not being “masculine”. If he’s already slept with so many women and he already knows this woman, why is he acting like a novice when he isn’t? To me, however,
Gatsby’s behavior makes total sense. First off, a man doesn’t always have to act like a “man” in his love life; it’s okay for the guy to be shy about approaching a woman, even though to other men it isn’t. As Hays writes, “Could someone so ruthless in both the army and business be so

timid in dating?” The answer is yes. Business practices and the army are different from courting women. It should be no problem that Gatsby is shy about approaching women even if that’s not the attitude that society encourages. Gatsby hasn’t seen Daisy in years so it makes sense, to me, that he would be a little timid in approaching her. It may also be that he, as a nouveaux riche , is going after old money and doesn’t want Daisy to see through his lie that he told her years ago. I also think that it’s an essential part of Gatsby’s character to further show that he and Tom are nothing alike; Tom has no problem whatsoever chasing after women and Gatsby is more reserved, even when he previously knew the woman.
Another point in the same paragraph that I take issue with is the fact that Hays paints
Gatsby as a Casanova before and after he meets Daisy. I have no trouble picturing Gatsby as a womanizer in his days with Cody and, to me, it seems that at first Gatsby was still a bit of a
Casanova when he met Daisy and was just kind of using her for his own pleasure. If I remember correctly, when he and Daisy had sex, Gatsby described it as nothing special, meaning that he didn’t really love her at that point. Then, after they shared a magical kiss, Gatsby did come to love her or realized he had loved her all along and made all these plans to marry her. Then, of course, came the war. I think that Gatsby’s determination to get back to Daisy and do all this stuff for her and the fact that his entire life after he met Daisy revolves around her speaks to his loyalty to her and it’s hard to picture Gatsby with anyone else after that kiss, even when he’s at
Oxford and Hays says that he must have “met women of a social status comparable to Daisy’s” while he was there. I think Hays assumes that Gatsby would sleep with other women while he was away from Daisy. He obviously loves Daisy and has every intention to get back to her, so one can assume any encounters would be strictly sexual and for pleasure only. But then again that what hookers are for and I doubt any Oxford lady would be interested in a one night stand

with an American who may or may not be of the same social station as them. Gatsby doesn’t seem like that type of guy to me after that kiss. I think it’s entirely possible that Gatsby would remain celibate for all those years because he loves Daisy so much and is extremely loyal to her.
There’s no evidence that Gatsby has his way with guests at his parties even though it would pretty much be the same kind of relationship with anyone at Oxford (or anytime after that kiss).
Hays is projecting society’s image of the man onto Gatsby, a comparison which doesn’t really fit and is better suited to Tom. I really love my wife, but I have to think of my own carnal needs, too, and if she isn’t here, oh well because I still really love her. I really think Fitzgerald is trying to juxtapose Tom and Gatsby and it wouldn’t be a very effective comparison if Gatsby shares a few traits with Tom. Tom is a no-good cheating louse and Gatsby is a faithful dreamer not too concerned with satisfying his own lust; he just wants Daisy. Tom lusts and Gatsby loves. They may have started out the same, but Gatsby found love, true love, something he is willing to dedicate his life to and Tom only cares about himself. Then when a stranger shows up and tries to take his wife away, he shows what he thinks of the situation; it’s a double standard.
Hays also implies that Gatsby and Daisy are having sex when Daisy goes to visit him at his house during their afternoons together. Simply put, I don’t believe it and can’t picture that happening. I just think they’re talking and catching up. It seems a little weird to have two characters have sex off-screen, so to speak, but to later make it a point to show Daisy kissing
Gatsby in her house in front of Nick and Jordan when Tom isn’t in the room.
I don’t get the “religious language” regarding this quote, “[Gatsby] wed his unutterable visions to her perishable breath . . . and the incarnation was complete (117)”. Hays says it’s religious but I really don’t get it, maybe because I’m not that religious. Apparently it’s also important because Fitzgerald was Catholic. So it wouldn’t be important if he was Protestant?

(Assuming, of course, that whatever the quote is referring to is present in both of the denominations’ doctrines). I’m Catholic and I’m confused as heck, but then again I wasn’t raised as religiously as Fitzgerald probably was. I honestly don’t even know what the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism are, besides the pope, celibacy rules, and some rites, and these may not apply to all sects of Protestantism. However, I do get that Daisy is Gatsby’s Grail, further supporting the idea that Gatsby is Jesus, but that’s for another person’s paper.
One thing that Hays does make clear is Nick and his girls, which thoroughly confused me and I tried to make sense of it myself. Just the way Hays describes it clears things up for me. The girl from accounting is not marriageable so Nick doesn’t write his “fiancée” about her, but he does concerning Jordan because they are of the same social status. Although I thought that the girl back home wasn’t Nick’s fiancée, even though Hays describes her as such. It’s more like friends who are really close, but everyone thinks they’re engaged, so it’s iffy if Nick is really cheating on her, but Hays takes a very critical stance on Nick’s character and practically compares him to Tom in one sentence, so Hays would probably think so. I also wouldn’t call
Nick’s . . . “thing” with Jordan an “affair”. It’s pretty vague in my opinion. Obviously they’re close and kiss at least once, but I don’t think they’ve had sex and since Nick is writing this book years after the events in the book take place, it doesn’t really seem like the relationship lasted past that one summer. It honestly didn’t seem like a real relationship to me, definitely not one that had a good solid foundation on which to build from. It’s also a technical thing with the definition. I think to have an affair at least one person involved has to be in another relationship at the same time, although considering Hays considers Nick already in a relationship with his
“fiancée” it’s entirely possible he chose his words carefully. Hays also paints Nick as an unreliable narrator so it’s possible Nick is purposefully leaving out certain information to make

himself appear more sympathetic, which is a shame because I really tried to like Nick. Every book needs a character for the audience to identify with and Nick was that character for The
Great Gatsby .
Another interesting point with which I agree, and one that hasn’t been discussed anywhere that I know of, is the comparison of non-Nordic races to new money. Both are rising in status and prestige, although overall it’s still a little shaky, and threaten old money and the status quo, which old money is very interested in maintaining. It reminds me of another article of literary criticism that talks about race in The Great Gatsby
. Unfortunately I couldn’t understand a word of it otherwise I would’ve picked it, but if my memory is correct, it basically classified new money as a race and talked about how Gatsby was from a different race from Daisy because he was new money and she old and maybe something about how it compared to real races during the ‘20s. I know I’ll probably get points off for discussing an article I didn’t pick, but I felt it a little germane to the topic at hand.
I agree wholeheartedly with the majority of what Hays is saying and wish more of the article could’ve been put into the summary because a lot of what Hays is saying is just a repeat of class discussions, so it seems like a lot of people have come to the same conclusions about
The Great Gatsby that we have. People agree on the major points of Gatsby, but may disagree about the little stuff. Gatsby is the opposite of Tom; therefore, it would be highly improbable if
Gatsby shared some traits with Tom throughout most, if not all, of the book. It would make much more sense if Gatsby had a change of heart to demonstrate just how different from Tom he is and to juxtapose their characters. Some people do not get some religious references in a time where not everyone is very religious, but it has to do more with me than with what Hays is saying. Nick may or may not be an unreliable narrator and the vagueness of some situations in the book will

doubtless be fodder for more discussions and literary criticism papers for years to come.

Works Cited
Fitzgerald, Scott F. The Great Gatsby . New York: Scribner and Sons, 2004. Print.
Hays, Peter L. "Oxymoron In The Great Gatsby." Papers On Language & Literature 47.3
(2011): 318. MasterFILE Premier . Web. 5 Apr. 2013.