Kyle Mac’s Blog

Gatsby is the second person so far who is chasing the American Dream. But rather than chasing money, like Myrtle, Gatsby’s dream is much more personal. “Gatsby bought [his] house so that Daisy would be just across the bay.” Gatsby dreams of love and, more specifically, Daisy.

How Gatsby came into his fortune is becomming suspicious. Meyer Wolfshiem is a very shady character and since he is a business associate of Gatsby’s, that makes Gatsby’s business look shady.

Whenever something suspicious is happening, it goes down in The Valley of Ashes. Bright colors vs. grayness is a strong motif.

We are first introduced (or atleast formally introduced) to Gatsby here, an eccentric man who likes to have parties SO big, they lose all personality. Could the parties be a metaphore for the American Dream? In the library, the bookshelves are filled with “uncut books,” which I think means they can’t be opened. I dont know if there is a deeper symbolism in that, but I DO know that they are clearly there for decoration. However, most people would not buy actual books, but just “fake” ones. Why does Gatsby need such convincing props? Who is he trying to impress?

Jordan and Nick’s relationship comes to light in this chapter. She seems a little conecending of those around her and I find myslef not liking her very much, but maybe I’m wrong. Gatsby is a very strange person. He holds these incredible parties but doesn’t seem to enjoy them. Again, it seems like hes trying to convince someone of something or impress someone.

Gold is all over this chapter- gold dresses, “golden arm,” chamagne (a gold drink), brass railing (close enough). This is meant to show just how extravenent these parties are and how impressive Gatsby’s fourtune is. However, I am reminded of a quote- “All that glitters is not gold”…

This chapter is all about Tom’s character and the contrast between social classes. Most of the chapter takes place in “The Valley of Ashes,” a fitting title, as it gives that part of the city a dirty connotation. This highlights the dirtiness of the business that is going on down there. Tom takes Nick to go see his mistress, Myrtle and it is here that we first see someone in the book trying to obtain the American Dream. While with Tom, Myrtle buys whatever she wants, whenever she wants, with Tom’s money, as if it were hers. She becomes selective and uppity; being choosy about which cab to take or which dog she’ll buy. Myrtle is using Tom to create an illusion for herself that she is an upper class lady.

We see Tom much more vividly in this chapter. He is rude- calls Wilson “so dumb he doesn’t know he’s alive.” He’s brutish, but he also seems to have the slightest twinge of guilt and respect for Daisy- he strikes Myrtle and breaks her nose because she kept saying Daisy’s name.

Color is beginning to become a theme in this chapter as well. The grayness of the city contrasts the lavish bright colors of the egg (something I missed earlier). Myrtle waits for a lavender colored cab- which symbolizes more lavishness- and gray is used to describe depressing, lowly, unwanted things.

The very first couple of lines of the book imediately sets one of the two most imortant theme of the whole story- class distinction. “When you feel like criticizing anyone…just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.” This sets up a motif that is ever present within “The Great Gatsby.”

I’m noticing how ordinary and normal Nick is seeming. I believe there is a reason the story is told from Nick’s point of view rather than from a third person. I think Nick seems very unassuming and likable in contrast to the pretentiousness of everyone around him. The comentary Fitzgerald is making about our society through dialouge is hilarious; the way we prattle on about nothing, the way we try to fill akward moments with conversation- the ADDism in those conversations . It’s all very clever.

The second theme in “The Great Gatsby” is the American Dream, and what it is exactly. Is it money? Tom and Daisy seem to be living the American Dream, yet they’re unhappy. Try as she might to conceal it, Daisy’s unhappiness is obvious. Even though she has money, her marriage is strained and she has a very negative outlook on life. Tom has a mistress and it is apparent that she is aware of it. She even tells nick that she hopes her only daughter (who was born when Tom was gone) is a “fool- that’s the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.” The reader is meant to hate Tom right from the start and like or even pity Daisy.

1. McMurty establishes credibility by using a personal anecdote because by talking about how he himself has suffered injuries, he shows the audience that he knows what he’s talking about. It appeals to ethos.

2. The comparison is very convincing. The brutal nature of both war and foortball is comparable. Also, McMurty lists phrases commonly used in football that are references to war.

3. The connotation differs in paragraph 9. He is using “lighter” words and imagery. There is also a shift in the argument itself.

4. The study shows that football is not the only thing that is brutal. The business world can be just as savage so it’s really not fair to go after football.

5. He counters his argument that football allows us to unload our “original sin urge into less harmful channels than, say, war,” by saying  “What organized football did to me was make me suppress my natural urges and re-express them in an alienation, vicious form.” I think he is right in both instances. Foot ball allows you a release of violence, but only so much. A natural need to fight can not be surpressed by rules and regulations.

6. Any sport, game, or business practice can be brought down to militaristic strategies. It’s human nature. A sport like hockey or soccer (obviously as it is the father of American Football) is based on strategy. However, no sport is as obvious about it as football.

7. McMurty’s audience is everybody, but those who understand, like, and practice football will be more inclined to get the article. It’s not essential to know how football works, but it helps.

8. In our society, it’s impossible for sports to tarnish a celebrities image because atheletes ARE celebrities. If a celebrity is seen at a game, it’s so common that it would just be like seeing them at any other occasion. However, an athelete’s image could be tarnished by media, inversly. Atheletes who are over media-ized (comercials ect.) become “sell-outs” and often lose their popularity.

1. Trubey assumes the readers all watch TV.

2. It gives the article relevence. It’s for some cause, rather then just because.

3. Trubey makes TV seem like this giant behemoth monster that we “don’t know what we’re up against.” Which, in all fairness, it is.

4.

5. Not citing your sources takes away from your ethos and your credibility. For all we know, he could have made up those numbers, or gotten them from an outdated or irelevent source.

6. The lists strengthen the argument to a degree. Some are helpful and insightful, but others seem just thrown in there for the sake of making it seem big. Others make me wonder what the relevence is of the numbers (like the one about falling asleep. What does that have to do with anything?)

1. Using one example to adress another example is a form of ethos. If an example that is relevent to the argument is presented, it strengthens the claim. For example, in the beginning a quote from ”The Sleeper Curve” was used. The quote had relevence to the argument that was going to be presented (it talked about things that were once thought to be bad are now good and vice versa). Since the essay is about the same sort of thing, it strengthened the argument.

2. The charts gave visual aid to the argument; rather then just telling about the demographs, a chart more easily illustrates the point. It is helpful to know what shows the author is talking about, though. A chart is more effective when the viewer knows how relevent the subject is. However, the charts might be abloe to stand on there own, if the author provides enough ethos prior to it.

3. TV does offer some of the intelectual demands that books do, just quicker and more simplified. A show like “The Sopranos” requires attentiviness and attention to detail, but it is much easier to percieve then if it were written. A TV show has pictures, sounds and spoken words. Therfore, it is much easier to understand and doesnt require as much attention as a book does, which only has the written word.

4. Johnson provides the counterargument of “Junk.” Shows like survivor or Joe Millionare. He responds to this by saying that there has always been junk, but “even the junk is improving.” He then goes on to explain that even reality TV flexes your brain muscles; watching the contestents figure out how to “find there bareings” and devise strategies.

5. DVD sales. In order to sell what essentially is a re-run, companies have to make complex shows that remain engaging after the third or fourth viewing.

The relationship “loop” advertisers have made between us (the self), society, internalization and externalization is both genius and diabolical. It almost reminds me of what a super villan might do on a saturday morning kids show “I’m going to tell kids what’s cool, then sell it to them! *evil laugh*” is ingenius. It’s also very very evil. The only way to break this cycle is to embrace inividuality. Unfourtunately the marketers know this. So now they try and sell individuality; and they’re succeeding. Is individuality just another fad that we’re being sold? The only true way to break this cycle is for EVERYONE to embrace there own ideas and not care what others’ oppinions (the “Corn-Pone” oppinions), but that won’t happen any time soon. So i don’t think the cycle can be broken; and I don’t even know if anyone even WANTS to break the cycle.

No: Do not clone human beings.

·         Gets rid of all uniqueness

·         Eliminates need for sex

·         Can only lead to endless repetition

·         Life by proxy

But…

·         Clone organs, for transplants

·         Clone animals, to end hunger

·         Experiment with genes, but on the opposite end of the spectrum