American Perspectives

Emily Gao

Ms. Sallee

American Perspectives

March 23, 2010

F. Scott Fitzgerald’s writings largely focus on the American aristocracy during the 1920s. The ‘20s became alternatively known as “the Jazz Age,” a term coined by Fitzgerald with connotations encompassing the prosperity, frivolity, and decadence of the upper class. The atmosphere and mindset of lavish excess are preserved in the plots and characters of Fitzgerald’s writings. Although Fitzgerald’s protagonists are wealthy, there is a noticeable distinction between those who come from “old money” and those who are considered “new money”. Amory Blaine of This Side of Paradise and Jay Gatsby of The Great Gatsby exemplify this difference.

Fitzgerald’s novels explore the ritz and appeal of the upper class, and the resulting desire of outsiders to belong. Jay Gatsby is one such character that makes his way to the fringes of the upper class. It seems appropriate that Gatsby creates a fraudulent identity for himself in order to belong to a world characterized by phoniness, in which “women who never knew each other’s names“ (The Great Gatsby 44) pretend to be the best of friends. Although Gatsby creates a fake identity, it is the people of the upper class, such as Amory, who are truly phony, for they understand and facilitate the superficiality of their world.

Amory and Gatsby develop their identities by embracing and rejecting, respectively, their families. Amory wholeheartedly accepts the privileged world he is born into and the influence of his mother, Beatrice. Wealthy and supercilious, Beatrice molds Amory into a young aristocrat. Amory learns behavior such as “biting acquiescent bell-boys in the Waldorf, outgrowing a natural repugnance to chamber music and symphonies, and deriving a highly specialized education from his mother” (This Side of Paradise 4). The culturing Amory receives from his mother instills in him Beatrice’s feelings of superiority and an acute consciousness of society and its classes. With striking similarity in both appearance and personality, it seems that Amory has “inherited from his mother every trait, except the stray inexpressible few, that made him worthwhile” (3). Fitzgerald is pointing out the meaningless of the trappings of the upper class. Although Amory and Beatrice are rich and beautiful, these traits do not make them worthwhile. It is the characteristics that Amory develops on his own, without Beatrice’s influence, that redeem him.

Gatsby, on the other hand, develops into the person he is by recognizing the kind of person he does not want to be- a bourgeois, like his parents. He rejects them as “shiftless and unsuccessful farm people” (The Great Gatsby 104) and yearns to move up from the middle class he is born into. After seeing millionaire Dan Cody’s yacht, Gatsby strive to achieve “all the beauty and glamour in the world” (106) that the yacht represents to him. Gatsby’s desire to attain the wealth and glamour of the upper class leads him to create the personage Jay Gatsby, his Platonic conception of himself. He goes about transforming himself methodically, practicing things such as “elocution, poise, and how to attain it” (GG 181) and learning from Dan Cody until “the vague contour of Jay Gatsby had filled out to the substantiality of a man” (107). As an outsider, Gatsby’s perception of the upper class is romanticized and superficial. Blinded by the glitz of wealth, Gatsby strives to achieve the traits characteristic of members of the upper class. Ironically, Gatsby believes that being in the upper class will make him more worthwhile, but the traits he attempts to adopt to fit in are the same qualities that make Beatrice Blaine not “worthwhile” (TSOP 3).

Gatsby’s attempts to fit into high society, however great, are unsuccessful because his understanding of the social class is limited. Gatsby is attracted to the upper class due to the glamorous appeal of wealth and its affiliations, but beyond the aspect of money, Gatsby has no understanding of the upper class. Gatsby attempts to gain acceptance with the wealthy by flaunting his wealth to them. He throws extravagant parties known for their excess, complete with “buffet tables garnished with glistening hors d’oeurve, spiced baked hams crowded against salads of harlequin designs and pastry pigs and turkeys bewitched to a dark gold” (GG 44), a full pit orchestra, and transportation for his party guests. He ingratiates himself with his guests by allowing them to “conduct themselves according to the rules of behavior associated with amusement parks” (45) and even going out of his way to mail a woman a $265 new evening gown after she tears her dress at one of his parties.

Amory, having an inherent and complete understanding of the upper class, is able to social climb successfully. While among the other young aristocrats at Princeton University, Amory is considered “only a sweaty bourgeois” (TSOP 45). Amory’s social awareness helps him realize that he needs to improve his public image, done by joining the right clubs and associating with the right people, in order to be an elite among the elite. Amory is so conscious of his image that he keeps his friendship with socially unconventional Tom D’Invilliers furtive so as to not tarnish his reputation. Amory is successful at improving his rank at Princeton because he understands the many layers of requisites to belonging in the upper class. Above all, Amory understands the necessity of fakeness, and is able to act insincerely and recognize insincerity from other people. He sees through women, “aware that he was getting this particular favor now because she had been coached; he knew that he stood for merely the best game in sight, and that he would have to improve his opportunity before he lost his advantage” (66). Amory’s understanding of what he wants and analytical approach to getting what he wants allows him to be successful.

Gatsby’s inability to comprehend the upper class beyond a superficial level the way Amory does hinders him from truly belonging. Gatsby, preoccupied with the upper class’ obvious gravitation towards money, fails to recognize the phoniness ubiquitous among the wealthy. He cannot tell a fake dinner invitation from a genuine one, when it is obvious to true aristocrats that “she doesn’t want him” (GG 109). Gatsby’s attempts at acting like he belongs are awkward and forced. He uses phrases such as “old sport” (52) that no one in the upper class actually uses. Although Gatsby’s entire identity is artificial, based off of ideals and dreams, he is less phony than genuine members of the upper class, like Amory. While the basis of Gatsby’s person is rooted in deception, Gatsby’s fakeness stops there. He is very genuine, shown through the way his intentions and actions align and the straightforward manner in which he talks about anything besides his past. Amory, while having an identity natural rather than created, is far faker than Gatsby. What Amory thinks, says, and does often all contradict. Amory’s insincerity is representative of the attitude of the world that Gatsby wants so badly to be part of. While their identities are natural, they are identities naturally rooted in phoniness.

Phoniness seems to touch every aspect of Fitzgerald’s Jazz Age high society. Amory associates love with phoniness while Gatsby keeps the two separate. Amory does not get too invested in romantic relationships, recognizing that his are based on mutual vanity. Amory is able to leave relationships unscathed, “aware that he had not an ounce of real affection for Isabelle, but her coldness piqued him. He wanted to kiss her, kiss her a lot, because then he knew he could leave in the morning and not care” (TSOP 92). Fitzgerald critic Crasner associates male characters with different types of masculinity. If one were to apply Crasner’s lens of various forms of masculinity to Amory, his type of masculinity would actually be femininity. Amory is presented in a feminine way, as he is said to possess the unconventional beauty of his mother, large eyes, and a slender frames. Beyond giving Amory feminine facial features, Beatrice also gives Amory a female perspective. As a child, Amory witnesses the phony way that his mother flirts through “maintaining an enchantingly wavering attitude” after “discovering that priests were infinitely more attentive when she was in process of losing or attentive when she was in the process of losing or regaining faith in Mother Church” (TSOP 6). Similarly, Amory manipulates women in the same way that the women of Fitzgerald’s writings, such as Beatrice and Daisy of The Great Gatsby, manipulate men. Thus, Amory uses fakeness to his advantage when interacting with women. He distances himself from women, never becoming fully devoted to them and falling head over heels in love the way Gatsby does.

Unlike Amory, Gatsby wholly and genuinely commits to his relationship with Daisy. Gatsby is so attracted to Daisy for what she represents. Her wealth and status appeals to Gatsby, who sees her as a tangible form of everything he admires about the upper class. Even her voice “was full of money- that was the inexhaustible charm that rose and fell in it, the jingle of it, the cymbals’ song of it” (GG 127). Gatsby does not see Daisy for herself, but beyond her, into his own visions within her (Bewley). The form of masculinity Cresner attributes to Gatsby is one of solipsism and love. Indeed, Gatsby loves Daisy, but because of his solipsism- he sees her as an extension of himself. He ties Daisy, the pinnacle of the beauty and appeal of wealth, to his Platonic conception. After he “kissed this girl, and forever wed his unutterable visions to her perishable breath” (117), he clings to his romanticized notion of Daisy. He sees being with Daisy as an essential part of achieving his Platonic conception. He commits himself so completely to his Platonic conception, and therefore Daisy, that nothing can stop him from pursuing her- not the war, Daisy’ marriage to Tom, nor the years separating them.

Gatsby’s mistake does not lie in his Platonic conception, but his conception’s synonymousness with Daisy. Both Gatsby and Amory create an identity, as they both play up their strengths and mask their weaknesses in an attempt to present the most advantageous version of themselves as they perceive it. However, Amory’s identity is not dependent on anyone else. He stays true to his fundamental qualities, even if he disguises them with fakeness. This Side of Paradise closes with Amory crying, “I know myself, but that is all” (282). Unlike that of Amory, Gatsby’s created identity is dependent on being with Daisy. As much as Gatsby associates Daisy with his own identity, she is ultimately still her own person. Gatsby’s inflexible devotion results in his failure to achieve the goals of his self-created image and eventually, his death.

This Side of Paradise and The Great Gatsby demonstrate the importance of self-awareness. Although Amory often intentionally acts contrary to his beliefs, retaining awareness of those beliefs prevents him from experiencing an identity crisis. Gatsby’s actions and beliefs, based on the lies of his self-created identity, are all intended to win over Daisy. Gatsby’s earnestness to be with Daisy causes him to lose himself. While the identities of both characters are fraudulent in their own way, self-understanding is the factor that determines Amory’s success at employing deception and Gatsby’s failure.

Works Cited

Bewley, Marius. “On the Two Levels of Daisy Buchanan.” F. Scott Fitzgerald:

Comprehensive Research and Study Guide. United States of America: Chelsea

House Publishers, 2000. Print.

Bloom, Harold. “Biography of F. Scott Fitzgerald.” F. Scott Fitzgerald: Comprehensive

Research and Study Guide. United States of America: Chelsea House Publishers, 2000. Print.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. New York: Scribner, 2003. Print.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott. This Side of Paradise. New York: Scribner, 1960. Print.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott. “Winter Dreams.” Metropolitan Magazine. December 1922.

Frasner, Keath. “On a ‘Man’s Book’.” F. Scott Fitzgerald:

Comprehensive Research and Study Guide. United States of America: Chelsea

House Publishers, 2000. Print.

1