by Michelle Mclean

Created on: March 06, 2009

Lois Tyson, author of "Critical Theory Today," states that "A Marxist reading [of literature] would focus on the ways in which the psychological problemsare produced by the material/historical realities within which the" characters of a book operate (65). This being the case, "The Great Gatsby" could be considered a significant criticism of the upper class. The characters problems all stem from money and their place in society. Daisy is not free to love Gatsby, even once he gains money, because of his social status. Myrtle will never be rescued' from her life of poverty (lack of money) because of her social status. Jordan's and Nick's views of life and psychological problems (fear of intimacy, etc) most likely stem from their upper class, and therefore monetarily skewed upbringing and view of the world. Tom is just a goodie bag of psychological problems, all coming from his privileged life.

The text does reveal, as Tyson states, "the dark underbellyof American capitalist culture" (69). The upper classes, portrayed most notably by Tom and Daisy Buchanan, could hardly be said to be shown in favorable light. Tom is an ego-maniac, controlling bigot whose money has cushioned him from every unpleasant aspect of life. His wife is not much better, also being the product of the class in which she was born.

The lower classes, represented by George and Myrtle Wilson, are also depicted in a negative light. However, their flaws could be sympathetically excused by the sheer helplessness of their situation. Each is doing what they feel they must in order to improve their lot in life. The same can not be said for the upper class characters.

Gatsby is a strange sort of hybrid of these two classes. While in the novel he is technically, at least financially, part of the upper class, he only got to that position through criminal activities. He generally associates with other upper class criminals (Wolfsheim) or their lower class counterparts. He doesn't quite belong in either class and his character, as a result, is alternately portrayed in both positive and negative lights. That is to say, that while he may have negative aspects to his character, he is portrayed in a sympathetic way that removes him a bit from the general condemnation of the rest of his class.

Had the lower class been shown in a slightly more favorable light, and the upper class as a little less shiny and attractive, this novel could have been a very strong criticism against the evils of excess money. As it is, though, neither side ends up looking very desirable.

Source Cited: Lois
Tyson. Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide. Routledge: New York, NY, 2006.

Learn more about this author, Michelle Mclean.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.