This is not my beautiful house

My focus throughout the semester ended up being largely on audience interpretation. This works well with the theme of Gatsby in the 21st century, I believe, because there is much to be said about how a book is differently interpreted by readers 100 years later. Most of my blog posts ended up being very silly, despite my best efforts. It’s simply who I am! I don’t have much to say, and I’ve been attacked with an onslaught of migraines and sickness in this fabulous last week of the semester, so let’s go ahead with it.

Thank you endlessly for your support and feedback throughout the semester!

1. Paper One
2. Paper Two
3. Paper Three
4. Multimodal Project
5. Final Bibliography

Paper Two “Building On, Rather Than Destructing”

By changing the race, gender, or sexuality of a character, you are able to recontextualize their every action & thought. A Black or transgender character who feels a sense of alienation holds a different meaning than a White male character who feels the same, for example. The ousting of POC and Queer people in the real world provides context for this example character’s feeling of disbelonging. Those who experience real life discrimination will then see themselves represented in characters like them, encouraging them to connect and interact with the story in a way that they may not otherwise. This becomes especially important in the context of a novel as old as The Great Gatsby, where its endurance relies entirely on the audience, as there is no longer an author to advertise it.

In Self-Made Boys, Anna-Marie McLemore rewrites Nick as Nick Caraveo, a gay, Latino, transgender man. Though these changes from the original Nick’s implied status as a White cis man recontextualize his character and actively change the way he behaves, he keeps core traits such as his dedication to logic and cynicism, his self-consciousness, and his hesitancy to get involved that keep him recognizable as well as maintaining his role in the story as the cynical outsider. These traits are still reframed, though. Consider their shared hesitancy: where Nick Carraway doesn’t get involved in anything due to a self-perceived superiority to others, Nick Caraveo’s hesitancy stems more from a fear of losing his current position in life by getting involved with people who could ruin his career. In The Great Gatsby, Nick says this: “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.” He is bragging about the fact that he did not attend until directly requested, setting himself apart from the regular attendees by declaring himself as a unique case. He is wanted at the party, unlike everyone else. This sense of superiority stems from his cynicism– he believes himself to have a unique viewpoint that makes him smarter than and places him above “the rest”. Nick Caraveo’s cynicism, on the other hand, comes more from a jaded view of the world that he has gained from being a poor beet farmer and a brown man in a world that does not make room for him to succeed. Caraveo writes in a letter to Daisy: “How many New York finance men do you think loiter around Beet Patch? If he hadn’t blown a tire, he never would have stopped.” If it weren’t for the coincidence of the New York finance man’s tire blowing where Nick lived, he would never have gotten the opportunity to work in New York. Even once he arrives, it is made very clear that it is a White man’s world, and Nick is given a shabby desk in a bad position in the office – even once he gains the opportunity, it is actively made difficult for him because he is not White. The opportunity fell in his lap the same as happens for Nick Carraway (He only gets to know Gatsby by the chance that he is related to Daisy), but Caraveo has to work to keep his position in a way that Carraway does not. This actually gives him a more solid motivation as a character- he has a good reason to stay away from the racist, white-supremecist Tom, for example, as well as a secondary reason (apart from knowing Tom is cheating and to make Jay happy) to want Daisy to break things off with Tom.

Daisy’s character is inextricably linked with her identity as a woman facing sexism and infantilization in 1920s America. It is an integral part of her characterization in both Self-Made Boys and The Great Gatsby. Self-Made Boys adds onto her characterization by writing her as a White-passing Latina and closeted lesbian. By adding these layers of context, we are given a more complex, complete picture of who Daisy is, rather than the broad strokes that are given to us in The Great Gatsby. Self-Made Boys has its own rendition of the famous beautiful little fools quote that encapsulates the similarities and differences between the two Daisys well. 

In The Great Gatsby: “I’m glad it’s a girl. And I hope she’ll be a fool—that’s the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.” 

Compared to: “Men love beautiful, useless, expensive things. So I’m meant to be one. I’m not supposed to be any- thing but a beautiful little fool.” in Self-Made Boys.

There is context added to Daisy feeling objectified when we take into consideration that she is Latina. There is a real life problem of Latinas being sought after for the stereotype of being “feisty” or “exotic” women, which is a form of objectification that stems from racism. While Tom believes she is White, it is entirely possible she has faced this issue previously, or that she will face it in the future. There is also the bigoted belief that women of color are less intelligent, compounded with the way women in general were treated as frivolous and airheaded in the 1920s. Women are not expected to be capable of anything as they are believed to be too emotional and frail, and a large part of Daisy’s intrigue as a character comes from how she plays into this belief in order to benefit her lifestyle, disregarding her inner conflict with it. Self-Made Boys continues this theme rather than overwriting it– in the same way Daisy Buchanan realizes her life would be easier if she was stupid, so she pretends to be stupid, Daisy Fabrego realizes her life would be easier if she was White, so she pretends to be white. In both cases, she only perpetuates the issues by leaning into them and causes herself distress, but does succeed in achieving a wealthy, worry-free external lifestyle. You can begin to see a theme here. Self-Made Boys uses the changes in the character’s races to further expand upon the already existing themes and characterization found in The Great Gatsby.

Anna-Marie McLemore also expands on character using age and gender, which can be seen in Nick and even more so in Gatsby. I will refer to The Great Gatsby’s character as Gatsby and Self-Made Boys’ as Jay for the rest of this paragraph. He remains a wealthy white man in both novels, though Jay has added context of his time spent in war being when he was underage, whereas Gatsby was likely an adult or closer to adulthood. Jay likely became a soldier so young in order to prove his manliness, since he is transgender in this story. It would make sense for him to feel he has to earn his right to manhood by serving his country, though it is a ridiculous idea in reality. Gatsby is cis, so he does not feel the need to earn his manhood in the same way Jay does, though he likely still feels like he needs to earn it in the way many cis men do due to toxic masculinity. Jay’s need is also accentuated by his being gay– gay men are often put down as being “less manly” for their attractions, as if manliness is some pinnacle that must be aspired to. It is an idea rooted in misogyny, and we see this clearly expressed in Self-Made Boys when Tom repeatedly and relentlessly makes fun of Gatsby for wearing pink, although in reality it would have been relatively normal at the time, it is written to make Tom’s homophobia clear to the modern readers. Jay’s relation to the themes of the original Gatsby are perhaps the most obvious of the primary cast; it is in the dedication pages of Self-Made Boys. Anna-Marie McLemore Selects the quote “So he invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen-year-old boy would be likely to invent.”, accredited to F. Scott Fitzgerald. McLemore takes the existing theme of Gatsby’s need to reinvent himself to appeal to Daisy and extends it to Jay’s core, to a history past Daisy, by making it so that he reinvents himself not due to Daisy but for his own sake. He becomes much more of a believable person in this way, while maintaining his whimsical, distant factor through his spontaneity, love for art, and romantic disposition.

Both The Great Gatsby’s Meyer Wolfsheim and Self-Made Boys’s Martha Wolf serve to explain to Nick (and thus the reader) details of Gatsby’s past that they have learned from their long-lasting business relationships with him, giving us insight to his character that we would not otherwise have due to Gatsby’s closed-off nature. Both novels feature a scene of the Wolf/shiem explaining to Nick that Gatsby was essentially “nothing” before they started doing business together. Wolfshiem, for example, says the following to Nick.

“I raised him up out of nothing, right out of the gutter. I saw right away he was a fine-appearing, gentlemanly young man, and when he told me he was at Oggsford I knew I could use him good. I got him to join the American Legion and he used to stand high there. Right off he did some work for a client of mine up to Albany. We were so thick like that in everything”—he held up two bulbous fingers—”always together.”

Wolfshiem is fond of Gatsby, and when Nick is trying to get him to attend Gatsby’s funeral he calls him Gatsby’s “closest friend”. They have a good business relationship, and Wolfshiem saw potential in Gatsby when they first met. He acts as a sort of sponsor for Gatsby, likely being the one who tells Gatsby who to get into contact with to make profits selling alcohol. They are close, for sure, but due to the nature of how The Great Gatsby is written, we don’t hear anything personal from them. The detached nature in which it is written, so we can focus on the characters as concepts rather than individuals, prevents us from attaching to their relationships in a personal way. In Self-Made Boys, Martha has a similar conversation with Nick about Gatsby’s humbler origins while they are driving. She reveals that Gatsby had been working in the Ash Heaps as a breaker boy, which is why his fingerprints have been burned away, and that Gatsby had purposefully sought her out, having heard of her ability as a sommelier and knowing her talent could be useful for selling high quality wine to the rich. Martha compliments Gatsby’s business savvy, same as Wolfshiem does; they both recognize his worth from early on.

He was eating a lot of his meals at the speakeasies,” Martha said. 

“How could he afford that?” I asked. 

“You can eat well in those places for below cost, because the real money’s in the liquor,” Martha said. “But if you’re going to eat that way, you have to do it fast before they realize you’re not drinking. He rotated where he went, which was smart of him, because a boy with soot stains on his clothes tended to be remembered.”

Self-Made Boys, however, is written in a more character-centric style, and we are often treated to spiels of the characters’ feelings and thoughts on each other in a way that we are not in The Great Gatsby. Martha and Wolfshiem both have strong relationships with their respective versions of Gatsby, but Martha’s connection feels more personal because we are more familiar with Martha’s own struggles in this novel. Although the relationship is the same, it is recontextualized by knowing that both she and Gatsby are queer, and they can provide each other a sort of alibi, should anything go wrong. As Martha says: “That’s something I liked about Jay right away. He doesn’t think anyone owes him an explanation.”. In the end of the novel, Martha does end up providing this sort of alibi to Gatsby so that he can move away from New York after faking his death and live happily with Nick.

The take-away is that by varying the races, genders, and sexualities of an existing cast of characters from their original form, they are given new context from which to view their world, consequently making them more three-dimensional, as well as showing us a new perspective in an old story. We see this with Nick, who although he is the narrator in both The Great Gatsby and Self-Made Boys, shows us two separate perspectives: those of a White man and a Latino trans man respectively. These variations in a re-write also allow for new audiences to connect with the story, giving it longevity through widening its readerbase. Self-Made Boys, for example, appeals to queer and POC readers, as people prefer to read stories in which they can find themselves represented.

Paper Three “Responsibility of the Artist”

Creative responsibility is a responsibility to consider the impact that one’s creative work will have on its viewers. This means to be aware of political, moral, and social stances that your work is making, and how well they are getting across. Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby adapts its novel through a lens that more closely resonates with its modern audiences. It does not show what is strictly historical and real- this is a boon to its creative direction, but further exacerbates the already wide-spread misunderstanding of what the 1920s were actually like. Is this a failure on Luhrmann’s part, or on the audience’s part?

Luhrmann’s Gatsby takes many liberties with its depiction of the 1920s, and each of these liberties is a carefully made decision which supports the kind of world Luhrmann wanted to create. It is, in a way, a modern-day version of The Great Gatsby. Although the movie itself takes place in the early to mid 1920s, the music, relationships, clothing, and even framing reflect the 2010s. By displaying the world of the 1920s how he did, Luhrmann may have inadvertently led some viewers to believe that they were like that in actuality. This is no fault of his, or the designers, and in fact points to a very successful job, since they managed to make the absurdities of their world believable to an audience. The complication comes when audiences aren’t simply transported into a fictional world, but taking it at face value as a one to one reflection of reality. Take this quote from Kelsey Egan’s “Film Production Design: Case Study of The Great Gatsby”: “Outstanding production design allows viewers to feel like they were undergoing these events. It allows an audience to relive history.” So, the production of Luhrmann’s film is certainly very effective. They are able to place objects such as inflatable zebras into scenes without much question, as it simply fits the world that has been created. They are aware of what they can pull off, what they can’t, and how to use that to cultivate the necessary energy for each scene. This is not a failure, but in fact an incredible success. 

The audience, however, may not stop to consider that the carefully created dream-like feeling of the party scenes, for example, are commentary within themselves. The parties in Luhrmann’s film are a fantastic adaptation of those in the book; they are over the top, unbelievable, gaudy spectacles. The thing is, I’m not convinced that a large portion of the audience recognizes this as commentary. There is a widespread misunderstanding about the 1920s that has been very persistent for a long time, being that it was a time purely of partying and sin. While social standards did loosen up during the era, it was a direct reaction to the horrors of the first world war. Young people lost faith in the older generation, blaming them for the war, and there was a sweeping rebellion, of sorts. That’s why the boyish, boxy styles were popular for women of the time: they presented someone as young and against the older generation’s ways. The parties in the original novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald reflect this; they are hosted by Gatsby, who is desperately trying to grasp at a life he lost to the war. They allow him to escape, often literally, as he hides away in large crowds of smiling, drunk people. They are not meant to be yearned for, necessarily, but to be seen as they are: a coping mechanism. Luhrmann doesn’t shy away from this aspect, making Gatsby very awkward outside of the parties, making frequent cut-aways during them, making them by far the brightest, most eye-catching part of the film. The way they are cut, shot, and lit are disorienting. There is so much happening so quickly that it is difficult to focus on any one thing in particular, which would also be the case for the actual attendees. It’s a distraction, and one that seems to have worked almost too well on the audience. Think of any time you may have heard people speaking of The Great Gatsby in passing. I am sure that the parties come up nearly every time, if not every single time. There are many who wish to recreate these parties, disregarding the context for which they exist. To put it short, the audience doesn’t seem to be interested in dissecting why the parties are their favorite part of the movie. It is the least oppressive part. It is the part that lets you relax, that lets you take some reprieve from the palpable anxieties throughout the rest of the film. We are no better than the attendees. Does the same go for Luhrmann himself, or even the production team?

Equipped with my stance on why the film does what it does, we can move forward with how. Each character in the film has a distinct fashion sense, varying in both historical accuracy and individual personality. In any production, the costume designer’s job should be to uplift the character’s traits by representing them physically, without overpowering the other elements of the production. This is done interestingly in Luhrmann’s film. The personalities of the female characters certainly come across, each equipped with their own unique style of dress. Daisy opts for the more typical silhouette of the era, with shorter flowing dresses and glittery accessories. Jordan wears longer, more elegant clothing, which communicates to the audience that she is more confident and mature. Myrtle is a walking fashion disaster. She equips herself in 1950s style clothing, garishly bright colors, and many patterns. This communicates to us that she is not only out of style, but trying to be the center of attention.

I take issue with the costume design of this film. A quote from Alice Jurow, who is the administrator of The Art Deco Society of California, interviewed by Lisa Hix for CW magazine:

“People would be startled and disturbed if anybody actually did real 1922 fashion in the production of ‘Great Gatsby.’ It’s just not how we picture those characters.” Jurow is arguing that the inaccuracy of the costumes is necessary in order to communicate who the characters are effectively to a modern audience. I disagree with this stance wholeheartedly, and think it discredits the audience’s ability to understand basic information. Here’s a handy graphic from Bloshka depicting women’s fashion from 1910 to 1919.

Now take a look at this graphic depicting 1920s styles from Colorful Cashmere.

Although the average audience member may not be so intimately familiar with historical fashion as to detect minor differences, say, between 1910 and 1914, the difference in modernity is still incredibly obvious between the fashions of pre and post WW1 (1914). Notably, the revealing of arms and legs as time goes on. This is a basic visual cue that any person could catch onto, and not giving this basic faith to the audience would severely limit what can be done by the designers. Myrtle, for example, is described as being in her mid-thirties in the novel. The novel takes place in the summer of 1922, when women’s dresses are just above the ankle and their sleeves are typically about elbow-length. If we want to show that Myrtle has an outdated fashion sense, as a visual indicator of her older age and lower class, we would only have to bump her style back by a few years in order for the contrast between her and the other female characters to become clear. That’s the beauty of fashion in such a drastically evolving era of history: the differences are not minute. This is a real fact of history that should be harnessed to enhance the storytelling, not ignored in favor of coddling the audience. 

The other part of the argument in favor of the film’s costumes is that because in the 20s, these shorter skirts were quite scandalous, we must find a visual equivalent to get it across to a modern audience that these women are attractive and fashionable. I disagree with this, as well. The reason that these changes in style were scandalous wasn’t so much to do with showing too much off, but rather what was being shown off. The turn away from accentuating waistlines and busts, as was popular pre-1914, was something of a feminist movement. The women who choose to don these loose-hanging dresses which show off their arms and legs are doing so because they are rejecting showing off their “womanly assets”, as it were. They are taking matters into their own hands, giving themselves more freedom with their clothing. That’s what made it a “sexy” look at the time- not that their legs were out, but that their legs being out meant that they were more open-minded and fun-loving. My argument here is that the style of the 2010s did the same as the 1910s, leaning into an accentuation of hips, waists, and busts. It would then be more of an analog to keep the more boyish styles of the 1920s, because it shows a deviation from what is typical, which is what the women of the time were actually going for. The men’s fashion in the movie is overall lacklustre, basic, and uninspired. They stick to simple American style suits for every main male character, and the most interesting outfit we get for them is Tom’s polo regalia. Where the designer, Catherine Martin, went too far away from reality with the women’s costuming, she stayed too close to reality with the men’s. 

Ultimately, I believe there should simply be a happier medium found. There is no problem with taking creative liberties to make an interesting product; nothing in this movie is 1:1 accurate, and it shouldn’t have to be. There seems to have been a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly why women were dressing like they were in the 1920s, however, that leaves a sour taste in my mouth as a viewer and costume enthusiast. There are many virtues to the actual fashion of the twenties, and discarding these beautiful garments in favor of backless dresses and busty corsets is an unbelievable shame. Women were being rebellious, not appealing to men’s taste. The costumes in Luhrmann’s film step all over this idea- shoving them right back into the male gaze with the excuse that that’s what it was historically equivalent to. A shame, given the costume designer herself was a woman.

Interestingly, the set design followed much clearer rules. Catherine Martin quotes: “Baz made a rule that we were able to use any influences or references from 1922 through 1929. His rationale was that the book was set in ’22, published in ’25, and foreshadowed the crash of ’29”. A clear time period is provided for the set designers to work within the limits of.  The set design of Luhrmann’s Gatsby is absolutely phenomenal- a true spectacle to reflect Gatsby’s own flair for the dramatic. It is completely over the top, gaudy, and glittery, everything you would think Gatsby to be. It is both accurate (to a point) and interesting. Gatsby lives in a ridiculous Disney castle of a home, looming at the top of the hill, bathed in golden light from within. The showiness of the sets never seems to overtake the characters, only exemplifying Gatsby’s oppressive dramatics. Take when he moves the flowers into Nick’s cabin for his meeting with Daisy. It is a physical manifestation of how Gatsby is inserting himself into Nick’s dull life- overwhelming his small space with flowers and workers and his own anxieties about whether it will be good enough for Daisy. There is another quote from Catherine Martin, “My aim is to express the true nature of the period through an electric combination of things that have a real point of reference.” I would say this is absolutely wonderfully done with the sets, and I simply must speak its praises. Its success even further accentuated my disappointment with the costumes while I was watching the film. If playing with the rules of accuracy was so successful in the backgrounds, why couldn’t it be as lovely in the foreground?

There is a quote from Walford, co-founder of the Fashion History Museum, in the CW article I have been referencing that sums up my feelings perfectly: “Luhrmann tried to make the story relevant by interpreting the 1920s in a way that would appeal to today’s audience. To that end, I think Luhrmann, and everyone associated with the film, did a splendid job.” Walfords takes in this article overall are absolutely fantastic, and I agree with him wholeheartedly throughout. I do not believe this is a bad film. I believe it is a bit of a mess, and that the audience has done a poor job interpreting it, and that the costumes leave much to be desired; but it is a fascinating watch. I suppose in that way it’s a perfect adaptation of The Great Gatsby, leaving you hungry to understand why it is how it is, wanting to pick the creator’s minds. Toeing the line between reality and fiction is difficult, and a reason why good historical fiction is so satisfying. Luhrmann is an incredible director, and I do not think that this was the novel for him to adapt, although it was fascinating. 

---

For my multimodal media project, I decided to draw an imagining of an alternate version of TGG where Gatsby rents out an airship to party on. Simply because I love airships, and they were around during the era.

I’m heavily influenced by the versions of Jay, Nick, and Daisy in Self-Made Boys. So especially with regards to Nick and Daisy, they’re very much so based on how they are written by Anna-Marie McLemore.

I’m also including the quick little fashion reference guide I put together for myself! I found all the images with cursory Pinterest searches. Most are simply from old fashion catalogs.

For my multimodal media project, I decided to draw an imagining of an alternate version of TGG where Gatsby rents out an airship to party on. Simply because I love airships, and they were around during the era.

I’m heavily influenced by the versions of Jay, Nick, and Daisy in Self-Made Boys. So especially with regards to Nick and Daisy, they’re very much so based on how they are written by Anna-Marie McLemore.

I’m also including the quick little fashion reference guide I put together for myself! I found all the images with cursory Pinterest searches. Most are simply from old fashion catalogs.

The Moon Will Sing by The Crane Wives was my third pick for SMB songs! I am a huge Crane Wives fan, and I got to see them in concert as my first ever live music event last year! This song has quite a few more lyrics than my other choies, so I’ll only be going over the most notable sections.

Tell me once again
I could have been anyone, anyone else
Before you made the choice for me

I read this part as Nick talking to Daisy. He comes to New York via her help, and she has him pretend that he is the son of one of her mother’s maids, rather than her cousin. She makes the choice for him to be unrelated to her, keeping him down.

All those empty rooms
We could have been anywhere, anywhere else
Instead, I made a bed with apathy

This would be Nick lamenting the “loss” of Daisy, since she is no longer living as a Fabrego, but as a Fay, and only refers to him as a friend. Their relationship becomes “an empty room”, which Nick sticks around for, having to rely on her help in order to remain in New York for the time being.

My heart knew the weight
Ten years worth of dust and neglect
We made our peace with weariness and let it be

I think that Nick and Daisy’s relationship has been damaged since she moved to New York in the first place. This could be the ten years worth of dust and neglect- her keeping up contact with her family, but lying to them about the life she is living. She becomes comfortable with this, makes her peace with it.

The moon will sing a song for me
I loved you like the sun
Bore the shadows that you made
With no light of my own
I shine only with the light you gave me

Back to Nick. In the book, Nick compares himself to the moon, which is a large reason why I selected this song in the first place; it is primarily about the singer seeing themselves as only a reflection of their loved one’s light, as the moon reflects the sun. This applies to Nick for both Daisy and Gatsby. They are creative, boisterous, shining personalities that do everything they can to help Nick, who actually wants to earn his own means, shining on his own. Nick lives his life in the shadows of Gatsby and Daisy, loving them regardless, though he worries he doesn’t have the same value without them.

My song choices for the collaborative group playlist for Self-Made Boys were Compulsive Liar by Ezra Furman, O Sol e a Lua by Pequeno Cidadão, and The Moon Will Sing by The Crane Wives. These links lead to youtube uploads of each song so you can listen along easily if you like. I intend to do one blog post for each song, so that I can go properly into depth to all the lyrics I wish to cover.

As I said in the presentation, I associate Compulsive Liar with Daisy Fabrego primarily, though the song itself is specifically about living as a closeted trans person, it can also serve well for Daisy’s faked identity as a straight white woman. I think it would work better for Nick if he had come out of the closet later in life, but since he presumably has lives much of his life as a man, being closeted (in terms of gender), it isn’t as much of a problem for him as it is for Daisy, who doesn’t come to terms with her identity until the end of the novel.

I’ve got one fatal flaw / I’m a compulsive liar / If I don’t love you, I will tell you anything

This I feel reflects Daisy’s belief that, beyond or even including her lying, she is a good person who is doing the right thing. “If I don’t love you,” could refer to her lack of feelings for Tom, who she “will tell anything” in order to remain benefiting from his power as a rich white man. The following lyric mirrors this with “And even if I love you / I’ll always be conniving / I’ll always be negotiating with the truth” Which could be seen as referring to Nick, who she does love, but ropes him into her elaborate lie of being from a well-off white family herself, telling Tom that Nick is her maid’s son. She negotiates with the truth with him by putting him in a difficult position, asking him to uphold her lie in return for getting him to New York in the first place.

And I can trace the habit / To when I was eleven / And I thought boys were pretty / And I couldn’t tell no one

In the second verse, Ezra Furman links her habit of “lying” (staying in the closet, living as a man, in order to protect herself.) back to realizing that she was queer when she was eleven. If we simply change out “boys” for “girls”, this can very easily apply to Daisy. I find the idea that she realized at a young age she would benefit from hiding certain parts of herself very interesting. I think it gives her a very strong motivation, the lying as self defense compounding, starting out harmless, until it eventually involves Nick, who is hurt by her lying.

It opens at a young age / That all-protective closet / Just lock the door / And settle in among the raincoats

This continues the themes of the second verse. It also adds on that the closet is all-protective, which I think is very true for Daisy. She suffers not only for being a woman of color, but also for being a closeted lesbian, though she may not fully grasp these feelings until she meets Jordan. “Settle in among the raincoats” could refer to how comfortable Daisy is living as Daisy Fay instead of Daisy Fabrego. It is almost second-nature to her, and she deems it as necessary. Which, arguably, it is, due to the unfair disadvantages she has as a queer woman of color in the 1920s.

The longer you stay in there / The more you’ll get distorted / The more contorted all your lies will have to be

Continuing with the theme of the lies simply compounding, going from something that protects to something that actively harms both the “liar” and the people around them. It grows in complexity, taking over their life entirely, which is Daisy’s central theme in SMB.

Don’t wait a moment longer / Stand up and turn the doorknob / And I’ll tell you my secret if you will tell me yours

I see this, the second half of the final verse, as Jordan speaking to Daisy. In the song itself, my interpretation is that this is the current version of Ezra Furman speaking to her past self, which works well as Jordan. Since Jordan is already comfortable with her identity, and manages to keep her closeted identity separate from her “true” one. Jordan is able to lend Daisy advice in guidance, giving her the confidence to “come out”, as it is, at her debutante ball.

I’ve been really into Cookie Run Kingdom recently. My terrible curse is that at any given time I must filter everything I do through whatever my mind decides I MUST be thinking about, so let’s talk about Self Made Boys in relation to Cookie Run! Another silly blogpost in the spirit of early April. I say self made boys because I much prefer the characters in SMB to those in TGG and I have much more fun thinking about them.

First and foremost. This is Sparkling Cookie, who is primarily a party host. Is this not the most Jay Gatsby looking piece of dough you’ve ever seen in your life. His description in game is as follows.

“This is the day! You have received an invitation to the famous Sparkling Party. Sparkling Cookie greets you personally with a dazzling smile and offers a glass of Sparkling Juice. All the guests are fascinated with his impeccable manners and looks: his boyish rolled up sleeves and bouncy bubble hair. It is going to be the best holiday party ever!“

I mean wow. Gatsby! Even aside from the looks.The blonde hair and sparkles are a must, of course, but notice also his green eyes. Ah, yes, like none other than the green light we all know and love. In terms of Self-Made Boys, there is even an alternate costume for Sparkling Cookie where he is wearing all pink and looking lovely, much like Jay’s pink shirt he wears while playing golf with Daisy, Jordan, Tom, and Nick. On the note of costumes, I find the masquerade one so utterly adorable, but it may actually be a bit too over the top for Jay. Sparkling Cookie keeps it modest other than that, though, so he’s still a good comparison.

Sparkling Cookie was the primary inspiration for this post, because I saw him and was a bit struck by just how Gatsby-esque he is. There aren’t really any cookies that particularly remind me of the other characters. I imagine if Jay were to play this game he would be really into the decoration aspect, where Nick would likely be more into the battle and optimization aspects. I could totally picture SMB Daisy and Gatsby making Nick optimize their cookie kingdoms’ resource production so that they could have enough to decorate however they please. I don’t think Jordan would play the game, because it has ridiculous in-app purchases and is a total time sink. Nick would probably not want to play at first, but I could see Jay downloading it and Nick getting into it when he finds out how bad Jay is at the optimization. They probably would share a save file, actually, because Nick wouldn’t decorate his own kingdom and it’d drive Jay mad. Maybe next week I’ll have a more serious post for you, but maybe not… I think this is just as fun and worthwhile, though. Lots of interest to be had in picturing characters in mundane situations, since it usually means they are characterized well enough that it is easy to picture them outside of their regular universe.

That’s what I think makes games like Undertale so relevant even so far after their release. The potential for fan made alternate universes that spawns from the characters being so strongly defined means the fans can think about the characters well beyond their initial parameters, which keeps the fandom alive for much longer. Undertale is pretty well known specifically FOR its AUs, actually. I do believe it is what popularized the fandom trend of creating character swap and “evil” AUs.

TGG pretty prominently features color symbolism, and is really obvious about doing it. The green light is practically famous, the blue cover of the book itself + the eyes of TJ Eckleburg, Daisy and Jordan’s flowing white dresses, etc. Colors have meanings, of course, so I just thought I’d write down what these colors symbolize in TGG for this blog post.

First and foremost- The green light. Green symbolizes greed/envy, rebirth, beginnings, nature, and harmony. Gatsby yearns for Daisy, who the light belongs to. The yearning would be the envy part of green, while his goal is to start anew with Daisy, which would be the “new beginnings” meaning of green. The light is in West Egg, the old money wealthy egg. This accounts for the greed, though I find the envy symbolism stronger (Gatsby is envious of Tom for having Daisy.) The nature aspect is more ironic- consider the use of green towards the end of the novel, when we are told about the “fresh, green breast of the new world”, as a contrast to the over-development of New York and the Eggs. Because there isn’t proper greenery around East Egg (the green they do have are carefully manicured lawns- which are NOT good for the environment.), the light, an artificial element, replaces it.

White famously represents innocence and purity, which applies to Daisy, especially, and her many white outfits. She wishes to appear ignorant and innocent so that she can simply float through life as the wife of a wealthy man. This innocence is showy and played-up, which connects to her style of dress always being carefully within the latest fashions and very extravagant. Innocence is a shawl she wears. There is also something to be said about Tom’s white supremacy in regards to how Daisy presents herself – that white as a “pure” color has a history of racism.

Blue, especially darker and richer blues, represent sadness, grief, loyalty, reliability, intelligence, and detachment. This is a color used often for both Gatsby and Nick, who share many traits such as detachment and loyalty. Gatsby is a sad type- I would go as far as to say he acts very much towards his missed chance with Daisy how one would act when grieving the loss of a life. He is deeply loyal to her, while remaining always at an arms distance until Nick invites her to tea for him. Nick seems very lonely, likely by his own hand due to his unwillingness to connect with anyone that can’t match his cynicism. When he finds someone he is fond of- Gatsby- he is loyal to him even after his death gets him wrapped up in business that even Wolfsheim doesn’t want to be near.

(Sidebar- My favorite example of blue symbolism is the TARDIS. It shows The Doctor’s struggle to connect with people as well as their vast intelligence, and their grief for the rest of the Time Lords. It’s delightful- and I don’t often see it mentioned by fans!)

One of the first things I noticed while reading SMB was how much more directly water is involved in the story compared to TGG. In TGG the water is obviously an important part of the narrative, largely for its role as a physical representation of the divide between new and old money. The channel literally separates West and East Egg, and it’s also what keeps Gatsby apart from Daisy until Nick bridges the gap for him. It still serves this purpose in SMB, but because SMB is more about other social problems than specifically new vs. old money, it gets involved in other ways to keep that significance.

For example, one of the first things we learn about Daisy in SMB is that she supposedly fell into the channel while yachting with Tom, which sets up a parallel between her and Gatsby for readers who are already familiar with the ending of TGG. (Major event in the water) We later learn that she purposefully jumped into the water in order to swim out to have her pearl necklace fenced, which is another parallel between her in Gatsby, but specifically for this novel, when Gatsby (played by Nick), fakes his death face down in his pool. I also find it interesting that Gatsby’s water is fabricated (pool), while Daisy’s is a long-standing body of water. Could potentially be another representation of new vs old wealth?

The key points of Nick and Gatsby’s romance also almost all happen by the water, such as when they meet being while Nick is walking home from the channel, when they go swimming in Gatsby’s pool (which co-insides with their developing relationship), and later when they swim in the channel itself after Gatsby confesses. The water is there for a sizable portion of this story, almost as a character itself. It starts as a uniting factor between Nick and Daisy, as they used to swim in the creek together, becomes a divide between characters in West and East Egg, and comes back around to being a uniting factor when it brings Gatsby and Nick together, as well as being what gave Daisy that opportunity to get a substantial amount of money back to her family. It is also the method through which Daisy is able to separate from Tom, when the group fakes Gatsby’s death.

Funnily enough, the water having a more active role in this story echoes Nick’s more proactive personality as opposed to his detachment in TGG. Throughout SMB Nick also compares himself to the moon, in reference to orbiting around Gatsby (earth), who follows the sun (Daisy). The moon, though, affects the tides on Earth. This is something Nick doesn’t bring up, but I fully believe was intentional by the author. Nick doesn’t realize what an effect he has on Gatsby.

Gatsby – Bullfrog: Bullfrogs are loud, and so are Gatsby’s parties, and they both serve the purpose of attracting a “mate”. (Note from my friend that I thought was really funny and wanted to include: “Gatsby’s mating call just so happens to be throwing ragers.”) Frogs are also hard to spot in their environment, which reminds me of Gatsby slipping into the backgrounds of his parties.

Nick – Platypus: He’s the odd one out in this group of animals. He is also very adaptable, easily inserting himself into higher society somewhat, which is fitting for a platypus being semi-aquatic. It’s also a bizarre animal that doesn’t really fit in a single category, which I feel works for Nick as while he can insert himself just about anywhere he doesn’t really do so deeply.

Daisy – Bird: Like, a songbird in a pretty cage. Her life centers around performing in order to continue with her cushy lifestyle, even though it represses her actual freedom.

George – Mouse: I have no strong thoughts on George. He’s easily cast aside and put underfoot, and he’s a bit meek. So, mouse.

Myrtle – Sheep: She’s a follower (of trends, of lifestyle!) Though not of George, who would be a much smaller animal.

Jordan – Greyhound: Very athletic, but held back by the expectations of society and her station constantly. She does not take action unless beckoned.

Athletic! But nonetheless “trained” and comfortable with it. (With regards to understanding how society works and playing it to her advantage.)

Tom – Wolfdog: He projects himself as some sort of superior animal (think, like, the power of a wolf!) when in actuality his prowess only comes from his wealth and no qualities he actually has (only a dog.). Also, he would be a predatory animal because of how he abuses his role in the world.

So, while writing paper 1, I’ve realized there’s a sub-topic I am interested in going more into depth with that doesn’t quite fit in the paper itself: Media analysis as a hobby! I spend a frankly absurd amount of my time analyzing children’s television shows and I have an absolute blast doing it. I actually often get too absorbed and end up ignoring the analyses I need to do for class in favor of messaging my friends about the latest narrative parallels I’ve spotted.

This topic came up because my argument for TGG’s relevance in the 21st century has to do with all the ways it can be interpreted and reinterpreted. Which is to say, what makes TGG interesting to people is that they can come up with a meaning for it and back that meaning up, even if it’s not what Fitzgerald intended for the reading to be. Which got me thinking about how fun it is to do this for the things I love, which got me thinking about encouraging other people to pursue analysis outside of an academic setting. TLDR: I think everyone should take silly things too seriously just to exercise their brains, and TGG is a potential gateway for this. (And- to be completely real with you- I just love talking about my shows.)

Which brings me to this: The similarity between The Great Gatsby and Children’s TV (Particularly Disney JR). Which sounds like an insane comparison to make, I know, but stick with me here. One of the points in my paper is that TGG is really obvious with what its characters represent (Myrtle being the cross-section of being working class and a woman, Gatsby being new-money wealthy, Tom being old-money wealthy, etc.) They’re pretty much entirely centered around their social status in a way that almost makes them caricatures. Fitzgerald does this carefully and intentionally, but that doesn’t stop it from hearkening back to the clear-set roles characters take on in Disney Jr. shows. You have your heroes, the supporting cast, your villains…*

(*To be clear, here, I am NOT saying Gatsby is clear in a heroes/villains dynamic. It’s not, and it shouldn’t be! I am comparing the purpose of the social classes in Gatsby to the purpose of morality in Disney.)

They are not often expected to break out of these roles- which often makes them fall flat as characters that do not develop. Which then makes me think of Nick’s perception of his fellow cast- He judges first, and then sticks by those judgements until the end.

“It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it,” – Nick’s first impression of Gatsby (after finding out that it IS Gatsby) / “and then his face broke into that radiant and understanding smile, as if we’d been in ecstatic cahoots on that fact all the time.” – Just a bit before Gatsby dies. This is just one of the clearer examples I could find- in general Nick sticks with what he decides on a first impression. (Very Scorpio of him, haha!)

What I’m trying to get at here, though, is that TGG is easy to play with in this way- because the characters are simple (in terms of their Purpose) it is easy to imagine what makes them this way- almost anything goes! This is a huge part of what makes analysis of children’s shows so fun. It’s modular, somehow? Like, easy to come up with more in your mind. If you’re familiar with the term- I’m saying TGG is like headcanon heaven. I think that’s why it’s fun! There’s so much we don’t see. Instead of taking it and leaving it at face value, you are encouraged as a reader to wonder about what goes on with these characters while they aren’t being shown to us. You are encouraged to think about the story beyond its beginning or end. TGG wants you to play around with it.

I think applying this sort of curiosity to things that interest you outside of class is really good for you. It’s fantastic to think. My thing happens to be shows for babies. I just adore peeling back that clearly defined surface and seeing the lines blur. Taking these roles of villain and hero and ignoring them for a moment- looking at the characters intentions with the context the writers intentions. They have to work within stricter guidelines because networks are so nervous about “confusing” kids with complex stories, but artists find a way to sneak their messages through the cracks. I like to try to find those messages. (Which- I’ve already gone on too long- but the idea that complex stories don’t appeal to children is total BS. Talking down to your audience is the worst thing you could do. FSF seems to actually want to engage with his audience using TGG- and I find that admirable.)

I’m pretty excited about that mention of working on a class playlist of songs that hold potential purposeful/accidental references to TGG, because that’s a lot of what I do in my free time! I have upwards of 50 playlists composed based on shows I like, and a large majority of them are specifically focused on singular characters. So, I’ve already started looking for songs and I thought I might share a bit of my thought process here for my first blog post!

Here are my initial picks! I’ll go through my thought process for each song. A disclaimer that this is mostly for fun, so they’re not going to be perfect choices by any stretch of the word.

• Money from Cabaret –
  • There’s a lot of interesting similarities between Cabaret and TGG as a whole, and this particular song just happens to be one of my favorites. It’s essentially about how the wealthy can use their money to escape their problems. I particularly like the repetition of “If you happen to be rich,” which implies that the people being spoken about come from generational wealth that they didn’t have to earn themselves. As for Cabaret and TGG as a whole- it’s something I’m interested in going more in depth to in a future blog post. Briefly, though: they both concern political apathy (particularly by the wealthy and careless), heavily feature escapism, feature a main female character who serves as a foil to the cynical main male character, and frequently prove their own points in a meta sense. (Meaning, they advise against being carelessly opulent and ignoring real problems, but many fans only focus on the glamorous parts of the stories.) There are many similarities beyond this, too, but I’ve already gone on too long.
• Stalker’s Tango –
  • I’m biased in adding this, because I will find any reason to put Autoheart’s music on my playlists. That acknowledged, though, I see this song as being through the lens of Gatsby, obsessing over Daisy while not actually seeing her, as the whole song is about the singer themself and not the subject of their affection. The line “It’s not that complicated, no matter what they say | You’ll never meet another me” could be Gatsby telling Daisy that she’s never loved anyone else, simplifying her relationship with Tom into nothing, even though Daisy herself knows that she did love Tom at some point.
• At Least I Have Nothing –
  • So, I only put this song on this playlist as a physical reminder to myself that this was the Saint Motel album cover that reminds me of the eyes of TJ Eckleburg. I don’t think this is on purpose, and I couldn’t find anything online relating the two, but I thought it was fun regardless. The eyes on the cover of the vinyl edition even move! It’s a great album even if this comparison is a total stretch.

• She Lit a Fire –
  • A less intense song about following a girl around after being charmed by her. I’d like to look for more songs that don’t have to do with Gatsby and Daisy- but of course songs about yearning for beautiful girls are aplenty. I’ll be keeping my eye out though. I don’t feel very strongly about this pick either, and it’ll probably end up getting taken off the playlist, but when I put it on I was amused by the comparison of “She lit a fire” to Daisy’s lit green lantern, as well as how she communicates with Gatsby from across the canal using the light from her room.