Fitzgerald the Misogynist Essay Example for Free

Fitzgerald the Misogynist Essay At first, the female characters in Fitzgeralds The Great Gatsby seemed to be rather dissimilar. Daisy was the angelic and innocent beauty, Jordan was the androgynous golfer, and Myrtle was the sensuous and vivacious seductress. One was from the holy heavens above, another from the sinful depths below, and the last from the neutral in between. Seems like a good balance, however, as the story progresses, we see more and more that the angle is a fallen one, and that the human is a demon in disguise. All three women in this novel use men in some form to get what they want. Looking at the depictions of the female sex in this novel, I believe that, yes, Fitzgerald was a misogynist. Daisy is a careless siren who uses everything given to her by birth to win what she loves, namely attention, adoration, and social status. The only thing that will give her the three is wealth, and the only thing that can give her wealth is Tom Buchanan. Despite having supposedly change her mine (Fitzgerald 74) just prior to their wedding, Daisy still married Tom Buchanan without so much as a shiver (75), and very eagerly uses her new-found money and power to buy her way to the top. It is evident that, from Daisys point of view, true love cannot compare to the money and adulation she craves. Upon her reunion with Gatsby, the first in five years, she breaks down into tears because shes never seen suchbeautiful shirts before (89). The beautiful shirts owned by Gatsby have proven to Daisy that he is even wealthier than Tom, and this fact sends Daisy into a deep lament. That is, if she had just stayed with Gatsby from the beginning, shed be receiving even more attention and adoration than the already considerable amount she possesses at present because Gatsby could have offered her even more than the immense fortune she already holds. Poor, poor girl. Jordan is the least female of the three females, and I believe this is the reason why Fitzgerald did not have her meet an untimely death, destroy familial relations, or come to any other end she could have at the mercy of a woman-hater. Jordan is representative of the wives and daughters who emerged from WWI as androgynous, self-esteemed, and slightly misandric new women. When Nick first meets Jordan, she was perceived as balancing something on it [her chin] which was quite likely to fall (14). Though it is  not directly stated, I think Jordan is balancing men on her chin. New women like Jordan dont need men, and thus they must use men to prove just that. Myrtle is the home wrecker of the novel. As a direct result of her affair with Tom, she gets herself killed, which leads Wilson into shooting Gatsby, which obviously puts an end to the Gatsby and Daisy affair, the result of which leaves Nick disgusted and breaks it off with Jordan. Besides ruining the lives of everyone around her, Myrtle also meets the most tragic end of all the females in the novel. She is killed on impact in a gruesome car accident, while both Daisy and Jordan are at least left with the prospect of a fresh start. I believe this is because Myrtle is the most feminine of the three. Nick describes her as sensuous, and despite possessing no facet or gleam of beauty, there was an immediate perceptible vitality about her as if the nerves of her body were continually smouldering (28). If Fitzgerald was not a misogynist, then how could someone whose vice is simply being too much of a woman deserve an end as graphic as a left breast hanging loose like a flap (131)?This nove l is certainly not one of happily ever afters, and I believe the fact that women are portrayed as the causes of all the tragedies within this novel is reason enough to proclaim Fitzgerald as a misogynist.

gatcolor Symbols and Symbolism Essay - Symbolic Colors in Great Gatsby :: Great Gatsby Essays

Symbolic Colors in Great Gatsby Colors can accentuate the meanings of a story and explain certain actions of a character. In The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald applies many important colors that allude to the personality of his characters. The colors given are repeated multiple times so that they can be established. To fully understand the characters of the story, one must recognize the associated colors that are given. Green is the color of "healing, money, prosperity, greed, luck, and fertility"(Nadia Davis). This color is closely associated with the green light at the end of the dock. "and distinguished nothing except a single green light/...might have been the end of a dock"(24), Fitzgerald symbolized the green light as the key to reaching Daisy. While on the beach, Gatsby is stretching out his arms to the light as if he will acquire it somehow. This green light represents money and prosperity, which Gatsby has obtained over the years in order to finally reunite with Daisy. Another important color in The Great Gatsby is the color black. Black symbolizes "Absorption of negativity and the destruction of negativity"(N. Davis). Gray is mostly related to the Valley of Ashes and Wilson. The black atmosphere surrounding it represents the hopelessness of their insolvent situation. "This is the valley of ashes.../where ashes take the forms of ashes and chimneys and rising smoke"(27), the ashes represent the black and how it puts a negative burden on Wilson and restricts him from future success. Gold also has an important meaning in the story. Gold symbolizes "God, healing, money power, and wildlife"(N. Davis). Tom is the most relevant character to gold. In relation with money, gold is represented as old wealth. Tom has always had this "old wealth" in his possession, and it is what attracted Daisy to him. In order to win back Daisy, Gatsby also tries to portray himself as having old wealth, even though he only has new money. These actions are shown through some of Gatsby's possessions, "here's my little golden pencil"(111).

Digital Fortress Chapter 49

Becker dragged himself off the floor of the bus and collapsed in an empty seat. â€Å"Nice move, dipshit.† The kid with the three spikes sneered. Becker squinted in the stark lighting. It was the kid he'd chased onto the bus. He glumly surveyed the sea of red, white, and blue coiffures. â€Å"What's with the hair?† Becker moaned, motioning to the others. â€Å"It's all†¦Ã¢â‚¬  â€Å"Red, white, and blue?† the kid offered. Becker nodded, trying not to stare at the infected perforation in the kid's upper lip. â€Å"Judas Taboo,† the kid said matter-of-factly. Becker looked bewildered. The punk spit in the aisle, obviously disgusted with Becker's ignorance. â€Å"Judas Taboo? Greatest punk since Sid Vicious? Blew his head off here a year ago today. It's his anniversary.† Becker nodded vaguely, obviously missing the connection. â€Å"Taboo did his hair this way the day he signed off.† The kid spit again. â€Å"Every fan worth his weight in piss has got red, white, and blue hair today.† For a long moment, Becker said nothing. Slowly, as if he had been shot with a tranquilizer, he turned and faced front. Becker surveyed the group on the bus. Every last one was a punk. Most were staring at him. Every fan has red, white, and blue hair today. Becker reached up and pulled the driver-alert cord on the wall. It was time to get off. He pulled again. Nothing happened. He pulled a third time, more frantically. Nothing. â€Å"They disconnect 'em on bus 27.† The kid spat again. â€Å"So we don't fuck with 'em.† Becker turned. â€Å"You mean, I can't get off?† The kid laughed. â€Å"Not till the end of the line.† Five minutes later, the bus was barreling along an unlit Spanish country road. Becker turned to the kid behind him. â€Å"Is this thing ever going to stop?† The kid nodded. â€Å"Few more miles.† â€Å"Where are we going?† He broke into a sudden wide grin. â€Å"You mean you don't know?† Becker shrugged. The kid started laughing hysterically. â€Å"Oh, shit. You're gonna love it.†

How Do Creationists Explain Dinosaurs and Fossils

One of the most unrewarding things a scientist or science writer can attempt to do is rebut the arguments of creationists and fundamentalists. This is not because its difficult to demolish the creationist point of view, scientifically speaking. Its because meeting anti-evolutionists on their own terms can make it seem, to some readers, as if there are two logical sides to the argument. Even so, the ways in which creationists fit dinosaurs into their Biblical worldview is a worthy topic of discussion. Learn more about some of the main arguments fundamentalists use to support their position, and discover the contrasting scientific view on each point. Dinosaurs Are Thousands, Not Millions, of Years Old The creationist argument: According to the most fundamentalist interpretation, the Book of Genesis posits a world that came into being a little over four thousand years ago. Creationists insist that dinosaurs were created ex nihilo, by God, along with all the other animals. In this view, evolution is just an elaborate story used by scientists to buttress their false claims of an ancient Earth. Some creationists even insist that the fossil evidence for dinosaurs was planted by the Great Deceiver himself, Satan. The scientific rebuttal: On the scientific side, established techniques such as radioactive carbon dating and sedimentary analysis conclusively prove that the fossils of dinosaurs were laid down in geological sediments anywhere from 65 million to 230 million years ago. Astronomers and geologists have also demonstrated beyond any doubt that Earth gradually coalesced from a cloud of debris orbiting the sun about four and a half billion years ago. All the Dinosaurs Could Have Fit on Noahs Ark The creationist argument: According to Biblical fundamentalists, all of the animals that ever existed must have all lived within the past few thousand years. Therefore, all those animals must have been led, two by two, onto Noahs Ark, including full-grown mating pairs of  Brachiosaurus, Pteranodon, and Tyrannosaurus Rex. That must have been one pretty big boat, even if some creationists believe Noah collected baby dinosaurs or their eggs. The scientific rebuttal: Skeptics point out that, by the Bibles own word, Noahs Ark measured only about 450 feet long and 75 feet wide. Even with tiny eggs or hatchlings representing the hundreds of dinosaur genera discovered so far, its clear that Noahs Ark is a myth. This isnt to throw out the baby with the bathwater, however. There may have been a huge, natural flood in the Middle East during Biblical times that inspired the Noah legend. Dinosaurs Were Wiped Out by the Flood The creationist argument: Creationists maintain that any dinosaurs that didnt make it onto Noahs Ark, along with all the other stranded animal species on Earth, were rendered extinct by the Biblical flood. This would mean dinosaurs were not wiped out by the K/T asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous period, 65 million years ago. This ties in nicely, if not very logically, with the claims of some fundamentalists that the distribution of dinosaur fossils is related to a specific dinosaurs location at the time of the flood. The scientific rebuttal: In the modern age, a majority of scientists agree that a comet or meteorite impact 65 million years ago, which struck Mexicos Yucatan Peninsula, was the main cause of the dinosaurs demise. The effects of this event were perhaps combined with disease and volcanic activity to cause the extinction. There are clear geological traces at the presumed impact site in Mexico. As for the distribution of dinosaur fossils, the simplest explanation is the most scientific one. Fossils are discovered in geologic sediments that were formed gradually over the course of millions of years, during the time in which the animals lived. Dinosaurs Still Walk Among Us The creationist argument: Many creationists would like scientists to discover a living, breathing dinosaur in some remote corner of, say,  Guatemala. In their opinion, this would invalidate the theory of evolution and instantly align popular opinion with a Bible-centric worldview. It would also cast a cloud of doubt on the reliability and accuracy of the scientific method. The scientific rebuttal: Any reputable scientist would point out that the discovery of a living, breathing Spinosaurus would alter absolutely nothing about evolutionary theory. The theory has always allowed for the long-term survival of isolated populations. One example is the discovery of the Coelacanth, once thought to be long extinct, in the 1930s. Biologists would be thrilled to find a living dinosaur lurking in a rain jungle somewhere. Then, they could analyze the animals DNA and conclusively prove its evolutionary kinship with modern birds. Dinosaurs Are Mentioned in the Bible The creationist argument: Some creationists say that when the word dragon is used in the Old Testament, what it really means is dinosaur. They point out that other texts from various regions of the ancient world also mention these fearsome, scaly creatures. This is used as evidence that dinosaurs arent nearly as old as paleontologists claim, as dinosaurs and humans must have lived at the same time. The scientific rebuttal: The science camp doesnt have much to say about what the author(s) of the Bible meant when they referenced dragons. Thats a question for theologists, not evolutionary biologists. However, the fossil evidence is incontestable that modern humans appeared on the scene tens of millions of years after the dinosaurs lived. And besides, humans have yet to discover any cave paintings of a Stegosaurus! The true relationship between dragons and dinosaurs is deeply rooted in myth.