We often daydream of a life we long to have… fame… fortune… a grand life, much as Jay Gatsby did during the course of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s renowned piece ‘The Great Gatsby’. Why is it we long for such things? If it were truly just for the material possessions themselves like the big mansion and fast cars we would feel complete and whole, but most of the time that’s not the case. Often times material wealth also leads to social wealth or social power. This ‘purchased’ social power holds as the main building block for Karl Marx marxist theory or criticism. While the theory was not directly created for literary analysis, but rather the relationship of literature to society (Hyman, 545). Marxist focus on the critique of classes and the effect that has on literature, as Marx Communist Manifesto did. Going back to Jay Gatsby if a Marxist were to theorize on “The Great Gatsby” one question that has certainly been brought to light has been ‘how would the novel read differently if Jay Gatsby had not been rich or become rich?’ By becoming rich Jay Gatsby not only bought material things and threw lavish parties, but he also bought the freedom to do as he pleased with wealth and status protecting him. According to Hamadi in the article “The Concept of Ideology in Marxist Literary Criticism” economy is the base of life and literature while literature and philosophy rest on that base. Depending on where the base stands determines the arts that rest on top. (Hamadi, 155). In Marx argument the ideas and values of society are represent the society as a whole, and do not properly present the different sects. For ‘Gatsby’ if one who was wealthy or lived a life resembled to Gatsby the idea might be ‘that a boy’ while for someone who has struggled day to day to make ends meet might see ‘Gatsby’ as reckless.
For Marxist the approach is interesting, and one that we as readers may often not consider in the forefront of our analyzing. So many times we want to focus on the words and how they are written, or the relationships between one character and another. When we consider the social and economic status of a character our interpretation can change. Another example would be from “Fifty Shades of Grey”, ‘would women find Christian Grey as alluring if he were not wealthy?’ I would feel inclined to believe we women would not find Christian appealing at all, or maybe a little. Christian’s wealth he created also created status and power. It gave Christian the ability to live freely and live his life as he wanted. For someone who does not have that financial backing the lifestyle Grey lives would be more challenging, or for some maybe impossible. It’s important to understand or consider the economic status of characters as wealth or lack of wealth can alter how one acts or views the world around them. If we read ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ as a working class man many of the ideas or judgements we’re led to create will change with this new found knowledge. Should economic status change our views? In the grand scheme of things, no, however for now in understanding one another it serves as a great step to understanding literature and what we can take away.
Citations
Hamadi, Lutfi. “The Concept of Ideology in Marxist Literary Criticism.” European Scientific Journal, vol. 13, no. 20, July 2017, pp. 154–168. EBSCOhost, doi:10.19044/esj.2017.v13n20p154.
Stanley Edgar Hyman. “The Marxist Criticism of Literature.” The Antioch Review, vol. 7, no. 4, 1947, p. 541. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/4609242.
Hamadi, Lutfi. “The Concept of Ideology in Marxist Literary Criticism.” European Scientific Journal, vol. 13, no. 20, July 2017, pp. 154–168. EBSCOhost, doi:10.19044/esj.2017.v13n20p154.
Stanley Edgar Hyman. “The Marxist Criticism of Literature.” The Antioch Review, vol. 7, no. 4, 1947, p. 541. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/4609242.