Examples Of Aestheticism In The Great Gatsby
a perspective on the intertextual evaluation of decadence and aestheticism which can be applied to the larger argument here. Moreover, Tom Buchanan’s decadent approach, valuing everything and nothing at the same time is presented as lower in the hierarchy of value than Gatsby by Lena. Indeed, what makes the reception approach to reading The Great Gatsby so fascinating is that it puts the reader front in center in considering Tom Buchanan’s schema, his characterization of all that is wrong with excessiveness and decadence; someone who lacks true moral depth and deeper evaluation of their place in the world, but rather seeks to control his environment, exhibited in his distaste for Gatsby’s acquisition of wealth, his racist attitudes, and ultimately his relationship with Daisy. When Nick remarks about the carelessness of the Buchanan’s he further illuminates for the reader the issue of the superficiality of their lives.
…show more content…
Again, contrasting their actions and representations to the larger hopes and dreams of Gatsby, who wanted to be like them; “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy - they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made” (Fitzgerald, pg.
179). As Bolton described in “A Fragment of Lost Words,” the text leave room for the reader. It doesn’t describe what it is that ‘keeps them together’ and uses vague language to evaluate Tom and Daisy, particularly relying on the strength of the word ‘carelessness’. Ultimately, exposing the reader for further opportunity for self-reflection and evaluation of idealization and desire in
general. Certainly, the character of Tom’s decadence can be contrasted with the aesthetic value of this novel. Tom’s foundation was built upon nothing and laid waste to everyone who worked against the order of the world that benefited him. In the case of the novel, nothing is laid out in an intently lecturer manner for the reader. Rather, what is provided is a simplistic character study of larger universal questions to the human condition. What does one desire? Why does one desire it? What happens when we attempt to achieve our desires? What we do to the text then is interpret these questions and provide answers. Indeed, there exists a “manufactured” process, to borrow from Eagleton’s exploration of Ingarden, yet it is the reader's’ job to bring meaning to this work for themselves and to reflect upon this characters in a manner that pushes their own . This is the art for art itself, the aesthetic appeal of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. It has no uniform answers, but room for the reader’s significance, and that begets its universal artistic value. It is the very subjectivity of this work that Stanley Fish’s school of thought calls for in applying reception theory. Where the reader pays their critical attention and self-reflection is where they will find the inherent value of the text and transcend barriers of objectivity such as the political, historical, and social constraints that would prevent the work from having universal and timeless appeal
Again, contrasting their actions and representations to the larger hopes and dreams of Gatsby, who wanted to be like them; “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy - they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made” (Fitzgerald, pg.
179). As Bolton described in “A Fragment of Lost Words,” the text leave room for the reader. It doesn’t describe what it is that ‘keeps them together’ and uses vague language to evaluate Tom and Daisy, particularly relying on the strength of the word ‘carelessness’. Ultimately, exposing the reader for further opportunity for self-reflection and evaluation of idealization and desire in
general. Certainly, the character of Tom’s decadence can be contrasted with the aesthetic value of this novel. Tom’s foundation was built upon nothing and laid waste to everyone who worked against the order of the world that benefited him. In the case of the novel, nothing is laid out in an intently lecturer manner for the reader. Rather, what is provided is a simplistic character study of larger universal questions to the human condition. What does one desire? Why does one desire it? What happens when we attempt to achieve our desires? What we do to the text then is interpret these questions and provide answers. Indeed, there exists a “manufactured” process, to borrow from Eagleton’s exploration of Ingarden, yet it is the reader's’ job to bring meaning to this work for themselves and to reflect upon this characters in a manner that pushes their own . This is the art for art itself, the aesthetic appeal of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. It has no uniform answers, but room for the reader’s significance, and that begets its universal artistic value. It is the very subjectivity of this work that Stanley Fish’s school of thought calls for in applying reception theory. Where the reader pays their critical attention and self-reflection is where they will find the inherent value of the text and transcend barriers of objectivity such as the political, historical, and social constraints that would prevent the work from having universal and timeless appeal