Okay, the NYT article on a “bizarre literary reading” of The Great Gatsby gives me an opportunity to air my own pet and possibly bizarre reading thereof. I’ve asked around and nobody seems to think it’s either been done or is entirely non-credible. I now throw myself on the mercy of the Internets, asking “Isn’t Tom Buchanan afraid that Daisy has black ancestry?”
![]() |
I think he is. People act funny at first when I say this because Mia Farrow played Daisy and Mia Farrow is blonde. And isn’t Daisy blonde? No, she’s not: when she gets caught in the rain, “A damp streak of hair lay like a dash of blue paint across her cheek,” and when we read in flashback about Gatsby and Daisy, we hear that “he kissed her dark shining hair.”1
We know that Tom is surprisingly tangled up in the subject of racism—which is to say, it’s surprising that he’s been researching it: “the fact that he ‘had some woman in New York’ was really less surprising than that he had been depressed by a book.” What book? Tom:
“Have you read ‘The Rise of the Coloured Empires’ by this man Goddard?”
“Why, no,” I answered, rather surprised by his tone.
“Well, it’s a fine book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be—will be utterly submerged.”
Which is to say, he’s been reading this book, and others like it. Because he’s worried, that the wrong kind of people will be—will be getting in where they don’t belong, on top of the white man. Tom again:
“This idea is that we’re Nordics. I am, and you are and you are and—” After an infinitesimal hesitation he included Daisy with a slight nod and she winked at me again.
Oh, that hesitation, before including Daisy. I think it signifies. And so does that wink. The wink that mocks. Because Daisy knows and understands. And so does Jordan, who refers to their mutual youth [correction thanks to jms] It happens again when Daisy talks about growing up with Jordan Baker in “Louisville. Our white girlhood was passed together there. Our beautiful white—” and she stops, because Tom interrupts her. Because he understands, and will have no joking about whiteness. It’s serious business. And there’s some reason to question Daisy’s inclusion in it. It makes Daisy and Jordan laugh. But it makes him nervous.
I don’t see how you can read that any other way. I’m sure someone has already written this up. Please tell me who.
1Also, yes, Daisy says their daughter, “Pammy,” has “old yellowy hair” and that “She’s got my hair[.]” I say a few things about that. (1) Daisy’s a less-reliable narrator than Nick, and if Nick says Daisy has dark hair—black hair, in fact, like blue paint—then I believe Nick; (2) “old yellowy” isn’t exactly “blonde,” more like a mix between lighter and darker hair and the hair could be “my hair” in that way of maternal claiming and denial; (3) it could be “my hair” for texture and curl, rather than color.
UPDATED to add and of course I know there are blonde people with black ancestry; I’m only relating how the conversation usually goes.
UPDATED FURTHER in response to comments, to add as per comment below:
Okay, just to clarify this a bit, this is about Tom and Daisy Buchanan’s version of this story.
What do we know? We know Tom has been reading racist literature, and we know that this comes as a surprise to Nick. So we’re presumably meant to wonder why he’s been reading up on the threat to the white man—we’re to assume he wasn’t previously absorbed in anti-anarchist literature, let’s say; that this is something new to Tom owing to something that happened to Tom.
What was it that happened to Tom? For my money, it could be one or a combination of a couple of things:
1. Maybe he knows that Daisy had a fling that worried him about her purity. This is not specifically attested in the text, but it’s plausible, given various imputations about Daisy’s character, including her own:
“You see I think everything’s terrible anyhow,” she went on in a convinced way. “Everybody thinks so—the most advanced people. And I KNOW.
“I’ve been everywhere and seen everything and done everything.”
Her eyes flashed around her in a defiant way, rather like Tom’s, and she laughed with thrilling scorn. “Sophisticated—God, I’m sophisticated!”
That “rather like Tom’s” signifies, too—she has it in her to view modern life as a threat to everything good and pure, just as he does.
2. Their daughter troubles him. Not just her appearance, though LB’s quite right to point that out; it could be worrying him. But the fact of her, and what she represents, if Daisy has in fact “done everything.”
Now, these concerns predate Gatsby’s re-entry to their lives, and they shape how he’ll be received by them both—she’ll see him first as a chance to return to her pre-sophisticated life and later as a version of the modern threat; Tom will see him as a version of the modern threat from the get-go.
On balance, it’s possible Daisy represents to Tom merely the conduit through which the modern threat could pass to Tom, but I think it’s at least equally likely, given Jordan’s smart remarks about their “white girlhood” and Tom’s meaningful hesitation about even identifying Daisy as white that there’s some concern on this score.



75 comments
February 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Michael Elliott
Another argument that has been advanced is that GATSBY is of black ancestry. Carlyle Thompson put this forward a few years ago. You can read about it here:
http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2000/08/09/gatsby/index.htm
But I think there are plenty of people who would agree with you. I no Gatsby expert, but a lot of the recent scholarship (Walter Benn Michaels, for instance) has been about these nervous discussions of whiteness.
February 18, 2008 at 3:49 pm
ari
Are you saying that Daisy would have been on top? Because that would be scandalous.
February 18, 2008 at 4:29 pm
eric
Hi Michael. Yes, as I get WBM he thinks Tom is worried about preserving Daisy’s white womanhood, to which Gatz is threat. My reading of it is, Daisy and Jordan think of her whiteness as already (should I say always-already?) compromised.
And Ari, you know, sometimes writers are aware of the ambiguities in their own texts.
February 18, 2008 at 4:48 pm
bitchphd
Why don’t you write it up, Eric? Seriously. I’ve hated Gatsby for years, and now you’ve made me plan to re-read the damn thing. That’s pretty good for a blog post.
February 18, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Michael Elliott
You should be careful, Eric, because if your history colleagues start to notice the way that “always-already” trips off your tongue they may get suspicious.
On the other hand, if you can work it into a dozen or so blog posts I can probably offer you a Ph.D. in English.
February 18, 2008 at 4:58 pm
eric
Am I allowed to do that? I think it would be some kind of poaching. And it is a very good book, you know. A little book, but full.
February 18, 2008 at 5:00 pm
eric
Mine was to B but if I can get a PhD by blog-post, I’ll probably try.
February 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Rob_in_Hawaii
Fascinating, Eric. I’ll have to pay closer attention when I teach Gatsby again this summer. And Michael’s argument is another twist worth looking into. Thanks for the link.
I’d even read somewhere that Gatsby is Jewish. The family surname “Gatz” was dropped, not because it sounded too Teutonic during WWI (as I’d always assumed), but because it was Jewish.
Fitzgerald sets up a lot of this uncertainty with all his unreliable stories about Gatsby for Nick (and the reader) to sort through. Every time I come away from the book I feel I know all these characters about as well as anyone can “know” the Mexican sierra, no matter what kind and how many spines it has in its dorsal fin.
February 18, 2008 at 5:17 pm
urbino
Need Tom’s suspicion be that Daisy’s ancestry includes specifically black members? Would not any non-Nordic ancestry be, on your reading, troubling to Tom? Daisy could be part Italian, say. Or, perish the thought, Jewish.
February 18, 2008 at 5:42 pm
eric
Sure, could be. I’m just playing the odds. Or is it the dozens?
February 18, 2008 at 6:25 pm
teofilo
Gatsby is not Jewish. I highly doubt he’s black either.
February 18, 2008 at 6:29 pm
eric
We’re just gonna take Weiner’s word for it? I mean, I never thought much of the theory (I got a pet theory of my own) but still.
February 18, 2008 at 6:32 pm
urbino
I’m just playing the odds.
Which odds?
February 18, 2008 at 6:34 pm
teofilo
I never did figure out what Weiner was basing that on, but given the number of Jews (and blacks, for that matter) in North Dakota it seems pretty reasonable. Unless, of course, we decide that the North Dakota thing isn’t true, but I don’t see any compelling reason to do that.
February 18, 2008 at 6:36 pm
teofilo
I find the proposal in this post much more plausible.
February 18, 2008 at 6:48 pm
eric
Which odds?
The demography of Louisville in the middle 1890s? Isn’t that reasonable?
February 18, 2008 at 7:48 pm
bitchphd
You’re totally allowed to do it. Interdisciplinarity, baby!
February 18, 2008 at 8:09 pm
matt w
Well, he attends the small Lutheran college of St. Olaf’s in southern Minnesota (Northfield, to be precise). And his funeral is conducted by a Lutheran minister, arranged for either by Nick or his father.
February 18, 2008 at 8:12 pm
eric
Thanks, Matt. So… whaddya think of the theory in the post, then?
February 18, 2008 at 8:13 pm
matt w
What I’m saying is, if he ain’t Lutheran he’s passing.
February 18, 2008 at 8:14 pm
matt w
Oh, the post. Um, maybe? The evidence marshaled is intriguing but it’s been a while since I read the book.
February 18, 2008 at 8:27 pm
andrew
If he’s Lutheran, that also casts doubt on the idea of his Slavic background.
February 18, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Jamie T.
It’s been awhile since I read Gatsby but an excellent podcast called “The Classic Tales” just did “The Offshore Pirate” by FSF. Race and class are at the forefront here to. I don’t want to ruin the story, but the pirate sails with an all-African American crew. The spoiled rich girl on the hijacked boat has some interesting takes on the racial dynamic. We have an omniscient narrator here instead of Tom, so that makes a big difference, but it is clear that FSF thought race relations were a key part of the 20s.
http://classictales.podshowcreator.com/
http://books.google.com/books?id=PKF0IEExDnoC&dq=the+offshore+pirate&pg=PP1&ots=BD9UDmZbul&sig=ZP-1QVZbYP8-jimeb4BqYtwI0w4&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=The+Offshore+Pirate&spell=1&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA2,M1
February 18, 2008 at 9:22 pm
urbino
The demography of Louisville in the middle 1890s? Isn’t that reasonable?
As far as I know. Like matt w, it’s been a while since I read the book; I didn’t remember Daisy being from Louisville.
February 18, 2008 at 10:34 pm
eric
Technically, it was in the post. I know, I know. Who reads that nonsense?
February 19, 2008 at 5:30 am
LizardBreath
I’m totally making this up, and I don’t know if it’s workable as a matter of ’20s speech patterns — but if there’s anything to your theory, and you’re trying to work in ‘old yellowy hair’, might it be possible to take ‘yellowy’ as referring to mixed-race, rather than to blondeness, as in ‘high yellow’? It seems a little more obtrusive than there’s any reason to expect Daisy to be on the subject, so it probably doesn’t work at all, but it crossed my mind so I figured I’d throw it out there.
February 19, 2008 at 5:48 am
eric
Yes, I think that’s entirely likely.
February 19, 2008 at 7:32 am
charlieford
One of the best things I’ve read on Gatsby–may be of interest to a few:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100958.html
February 19, 2008 at 7:47 am
zunguzungu
Walter Benn Michaels (in Our America) has a gloss of that scene where Tom’s infintesimal pause doesn’t signify racial doubt of the sort you’re pointing to, but to the intrinsic threat that a woman poses to the white family. A woman, goes the argument, could marry an outlander like Gatsby and thus bring a blood-pollution into the family, in ways that a man couldn’t or something. HE doiesn’t mention it, but I’m thinking of the way, in The Searchers, John Wayne laughs like crazy when his young protege takes an indian bride (and the scene is played for laughs) whereas the white woman taken into an indian family is played as darkest tragedy, and “the horror, the horror!” of that drives the entire film. I’m not sure I’m completely taken by the reading as a whole, but I think Michaels is absolutely right to bring gender into question, and to think about how gender and race are both informing each other.
February 19, 2008 at 7:57 am
eric
Yes, I’ve read Michaels. The first problem with that interpretation is, the scene happens before Tom or Daisy know about Gatsby moving to Long Island. So Tom would have to be prescient. The second problem with that interpretation is, well, which do you find psychologically more plausible:
Tom(1): “This idea is that we’re Nordics. I am, and you are and you are and—[she is, but women represent an intrinsic threat to Nordicity, so I shall nod instead of saying "she is."]”
Tom(2): “This idea is that we’re Nordics. I am, and you are and you are and—[well, maybe she isn't. NO, that's icky! ach, my gorge is rising and I can't speak. Nod, you fool].”
February 19, 2008 at 8:51 am
zunguzungu
Hmm, good points. I like your reading of this scene, but doesn’t the ambiguity of it make it hard to nail down what a definitive meaning? A pause (or a “not saying”) is sort of uninterpretable in any final way, though that line of thinking would take us into scarily English PhD territory, so lets not go there. But it is possible for Tom to be confused by a lot of problems, not just one.
I guess I go back the racializing of gender that goes on in scenes *like* this as a way of reflecting back on this scene itself. The gendered ways that a Theodore Roosevelt represents race, for example, is pretty hard to ignore, but even Stoddard talks about how “white men racially occupy four-tenths of the earth’s surface” (p145, the page I picked at random) in a way that’s significant; white men, it seems to me, can occupy *both* because they are white and because “occupying” land is an already always (sorry) gendered concept. Pioneers thrusting forth into virgin land, and so forth. So the question of whether women are really white is, for Tom, probably not reducible to a single objection.
Also, what does this do to the whole Gatsby-as-threat-to-racial-purity angle of the plot, if she’s already racially impure?
February 19, 2008 at 8:58 am
eric
Actually, I slightly take it back — the discussion of “Goddard” happens mere lines after Daisy first hears that a Gatsby — she doesn’t yet know which one — is on Long Island. But Tom doesn’t know, or know that it means anything to him or Daisy, yet.
I’m not saying I have a definitive reading. I’m just saying that — unsurprisingly — I like my reading and also I think my reading is kind of obvious so I’m a bit surprised it’s not out there already. I am still waiting for the Internets to tell me it is.
I’m not sure, per Weiner, that I believe there is a “Gatsby-as-threat-to-racial-purity angle,” at least, not to the racial purity of Daisy. Which doesn’t rule out a generalized threat. In fact if Daisy is already of ambiguous race but plausibly white, that renders her dallying with Gatsby a greater threat, in Tom’s mind — she could go either way.
February 19, 2008 at 9:34 am
eric
Okay, just to clarify this a bit, this is about Tom and Daisy Buchanan’s version of this story.
What do we know? We know Tom has been reading racist literature, and we know that this comes as a surprise to Nick. So we’re presumably meant to wonder why he’s been reading up on the threat to the white man—we’re to assume he wasn’t previously absorbed in anti-anarchist literature, let’s say; that this is something new to Tom owing to something that happened to Tom.
What was it that happened to Tom? For my money, it could be one or a combination of a couple of things:
1. Maybe he knows that Daisy had a fling that worried him about her purity. This is not specifically attested in the text, but it’s plausible, given various imputations about Daisy’s character, including her own:
That “rather like Tom’s” signifies, too—she has it in her to view modern life as a threat to everything good and pure, just as he does.
2. Their daughter troubles him. Not just her appearance, though LB’s quite right to point that out; it could be worrying him. But the fact of her, and what she represents, if Daisy has in fact “done everything.”
Now, these concerns predate Gatsby’s re-entry to their lives, and they shape how he’ll be received by them both—she’ll see him first as a chance to return to her pre-sophisticated life and later as a version of the modern threat; Tom will see him as a version of the modern threat from the get-go.
On balance, it’s possible Daisy represents to Tom merely the conduit through which the modern threat could pass to Tom, but I think it’s at least equally likely, given Jordan’s smart remarks about their “white girlhood” and Tom’s meaningful hesitation about even identifying Daisy as white that there’s some concern on this score.
February 19, 2008 at 9:38 am
eric
I’m going to add that to the post.
February 19, 2008 at 12:11 pm
urbino
Technically, it was in the post.
Oh, sure. Play the “post” card.
(That’s what I get for skimming.)
February 19, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Cala
Reading the post, it occurs to me that what with the Nordic and all, that Daisy might not be ‘white’ by having so-called ethnic roots. Italian, Hispanic, anything slightly swarthy and not worthy of a Yale man. (It could also just be her not being from the right people. Louisville ain’t Connecticut.)
That she’s part African-American would seem plausible, except that it strikes me as something so notable that it would be odd if it were thrown out there, even in the sideways way it was mentioned, without more being made of it.
February 19, 2008 at 3:47 pm
eric
Gosh, Cala, you’re always prompting me to do more work. OK. According to the 1900 Public Use Microdata Sample for 1900 (which is to say, around the time Daisy was born) Louisville was around 19 percent black. It was something under 1 percent foreign born. Of the foreign born, .2 percent were from Italy and there were none from any other “swarthy” southern or eastern European countries. (56 percent were from Germany, 25 percent from Ireland.) So just on the numbers, Louisville’s much more likely to produce someone with black ancestry than “swarthy” immigrant ancestry. (Caveats about sampling error apply, as do those about human error. But still, this confirms about what one would expect.)
February 19, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Cala
If I get a bumper sticker about this one, I will squeeeee again!
To balance that, from the introduction of the book Tom cites (page xiv), Nordic is not just white people, but specifically those from the Northwest around the Baltic and North Seas. Tall of stature, light of hair, fair of face, immune to the pull of the One Ring, something like that. Nordic doesn’t, say, include anyone in my ancestry. But those Nordics bred! And we would count as European (page xv) or Mediterranean, which might be enough to pass but not count as Nordic.
As a side point, Daisy talking about her daughter’s hair could just be her thinking that her daughter’s hair is like hers when it was younger.
Lots of people who have blondish hair as kids have darker hair as adults.
February 19, 2008 at 4:15 pm
eric
Yes to all this: I guess Daisy doesn’t have to seem “black,” except inasmuch as she’s from a good southern family (the Fays, don’t you know), that seems a bit more likely than that she’s anything else non-white.
February 19, 2008 at 4:28 pm
urbino
Lots of people who have blondish hair as kids have darker hair as adults.
I thought the same thing, but didn’t post it for fear of Eric telling me his post actually quoted some passage where Daisy says, “Of course, lots of people’s hair is blonde in childhood, only to grow dark by adulthood. Not me, though. I’m a brunette from way back.”
February 19, 2008 at 4:30 pm
eric
I don’t see that this messes up my pet theory, though, which is that Tom is anxious about the possibility Daisy has black ancestry. I noted the thing about the hair by way of establishing what color I think Daisy’s hair is in the book, as opposed to in the movie.
February 19, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Cala
No, it doesn’t. I just mentioned it as a side-note. If Daisy violates the one-drop rule and passes, it’s completely plausible her daughter could be blonde.
February 19, 2008 at 6:01 pm
SEK
So I went back an re-read that section and you know what? I don’t think you’re wrong, Eric, but there may be another explanation. Immediately before the talk of Nordics, Daisy complains that Tom’s hurt her hand:
Emphasis mine. Nick drifts into exposition about meaningless phrases, then offers one he thinks is meaningless:
The remark seems “violent” to Nick because he doesn’t realize that while he drifted off, Tom had sat there stewing. Why? Because Daisy described him as “hulking,” an adjective associated with Negroes in the racist literature Tom’s reading. Daisy knows this and is baiting him. Judging by Tom’s reaction, I’d say he has some doubts about his racial purity, not Daisy’s, and that Daisy knows this. Obviously can’t prove this either way, but there’s historical precedent in, well, every bit of genealogy-scrubbing undertaken by Southern families.
February 19, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Cala
Maybe he’s just worried about purity generally, keeping up appearances, &c. That explains the reaction to Nick when Daisy isn’t there and probably some blah blah about Gatsby not fitting in. New money being acceptable is one step away from cats & dogs, living in sin!
February 19, 2008 at 6:45 pm
SEK
New money being acceptable is one step away from cats & dogs, living in sin!
This is certainly true, though not as true in 1925 as it would’ve been earlier. I know, I know, that’s generally true, but there were so many Newly Moneyed folks in the ’20s prior to the crash that I don’t think the stigma was quite what we (and Fitzgerald) made it out to be. I mean, this was the generation that inventing “slumming,” after all, so while they may have tried to keep up appearances, there’s no small truth in the fact that society flocked to Gatsby’s parties.
February 19, 2008 at 7:21 pm
charlieford
“Lots of people who have blondish hair as kids have darker hair as adults.”
Doris Day had an black baby, which she gave up for adoption. Attack of the recessive genes and all that. Or is that just a rumor?
February 19, 2008 at 7:27 pm
eric
Judging by Tom’s reaction, I’d say he has some doubts about his racial purity
I could go along with this, but not this:
not Daisy’s
because, again, of the hesitation that signifies.
February 19, 2008 at 7:43 pm
urbino
Was that with John McCain, charlieford?
February 20, 2008 at 8:09 am
John Emerson
Gatsby, from North Dakota, is highly unlikely to be black or Jewish. Whe ND suddenly stopped being Dakota Native American around 1870, it rapidly became honky. Its population peaked around 1910 and has declined almost ever decade since then. Housing prices are very low! Buy Now! 2-bedroom houses for $7,000! Yes, the decimal’s in the right place!
It’s true that Charlie Christian was discovered in North Dakota , but he was from Oklahoma. Other jazz musicians from North Dakota include Mary Osborne and Peggy Lee. both honkies. ND swung harder during the days of Late Old West, but it was always white.
Gasby’s father at the end of the book is a stereotypical nice old small town white guy.
I think that a more likely theme in the book is the corrupt, decadent Nordics (Daisy and Tom) vs. the pure Nordics (Gatz), mediated by the aspirational corrupt Nordic interloper (Gatsby). Tom was not only a honky but also corrupt, urban old money.
Minnesota, specifically Stearns County, was a major moonshine center during Prohibition. There certainly were real Gatz/Gatsby honky mobsters, though by and large the Minnesota people (Polish and German Catholics) were suppliers and producers and not involved in the high end stuff.
February 20, 2008 at 8:13 am
eric
There certainly were real Gatz/Gatsby honky mobsters
Yeah, but don’t forget, Gatz/Gatsby doesn’t become a honky mobster until he leaves the shores of Lake Superior.
February 20, 2008 at 8:42 am
John Emerson
Lake Superior, where he made a living gathering oysters which are not found in Lake Superior. Is this unreliable-narrator, or Fitzgerald-ignorance? I say the latter.
Gatz may have had a connection, though, through a local moonshiner / bootlegger. Or may have been a middleman for Al Capone, who bought Minnesota moonshine.
The book on Minnesota moonshine is “Minnesota 13″, which is not on Amazon but can be ordered direct here.
As for Gatz being Jewish, I think it’s a good Bayesian example. In heavily German areas (ND, MN), the odds are heavily in favor of German names being German. Even an ambiguous name like Meyer or Mayer initially has to be assumed to be German around here.
February 20, 2008 at 8:47 am
eric
where he made a living gathering oysters
Clams, John: “he had been beating his way along the south shore of Lake Superior as a clam digger and a salmon fisher or in any other capacity that brought him food and bed.” Are there clams in Lake Superior? I ask in all innocence.
February 20, 2008 at 8:48 am
eric
And I believe you, that he is not Jewish or black, though that’s a going interpretation—or anyway, that he seems nonwhite.
February 20, 2008 at 9:22 am
John Emerson
Well I’ll be damned. I clearly remember “oysters”. I suspect a coverup, or perhaps bowdlerized student editions.
On the other hand, salmon were first introduced into Lake Superior in 1956. The lake trout seems like a salmon, but it’s just a big trout.
There are clams in Lake Superior. I’m suspicious of the idea of commercial clam digging, though my credibility may be suspect. Googling “clamm digging” + “lake superior” brings up Gatsby references and travel agencies. All the clam-digging references I looked at were E and W coast.
If FSF had said “netting whitefish” (whitefish = cisco, bloater, lake herring) he would have gotten the right effect and nobody could have quibbled. He could have thrown in “trapping muskrats”, though “Muskrat Ramble” didn’t appear until a year after the book was published.
February 20, 2008 at 9:31 am
John Emerson
Google gives me this, for $8.00:
JSTOR: Unreliable Narration in “The Great Gatsby”
The idea in Booth’s volume germane to The Great Gatsby is his concept of “distance,” …. that Lake Superior contains neither edible clams nor salmon. …
I’m big on the Fitzgerald-ignorance theory, but I have to admit that a guy like that would be very wise to use only unreliable narrators.
And I’ve been told that the clams around here are not edible, though people say that about a lot of things that are edible, albeit low-class.
February 20, 2008 at 9:45 am
eric
Inasmuch as it’s FSF assuming the persona of Nick relating the tale of Gatz/Gatsby, you can excuse all manner of ignorance as clever unreliability. But:
Boyle’s paragraph, from which that passage comes, takes up all the “fishy” symbolism relating to Gatsby, including the juvenile-comic names of the guests, so jarringly vaudevillian—and thus at odds with Nick’s overall tone—as to alert you something’s up: “Snells, Hammerheads, Belugas, Whitebaits, Fishguards.” Boyle goes on, saying Nick “seriously reports, for example, that Gatsby as a young man had spent over a year ‘beating his way along the south shore of Lake Superior as a clam-digger and salmon-fisher,’ yet we know, as Fitzgerald must have known, that Lake Superior contains neither edible clams nor salmon. Once again there is a distance between reader and narrator.”
February 20, 2008 at 9:59 am
John Emerson
Fitzgerald didn’t know nothing about nothing. He was an uber-preppy who ditched the state the soonest he could. I’m surprised that Father Gatz came off as well ad he did. Maybe Fitzgerald made a secret anthropological expedition to one of the lost Swede towns to gather local color.
February 20, 2008 at 11:29 am
Walt
Trout and salmon are basically the same kind of fish. Salmon are ocean-going trout.
February 20, 2008 at 1:35 pm
John Emerson
Whitefish are related to salmon and trout too, but salmon are salmon. The steelhead is an ocean-going rainbow trout. But it’s not a salmon.
February 20, 2008 at 1:42 pm
eric
If you didn’t hate Harry Potter so, John, you would be pleased to know that the critic cited by Boyle who shares your view is named Scrimgeour.
February 20, 2008 at 1:52 pm
John Emerson
Apparently it’s a real name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Scrimgeour
February 20, 2008 at 3:12 pm
John Emerson
Hemingway razzed FSF about the salmon. As a Midwestern fisherman, Hemingway would know.
Just got to thinking about how target-rich Fitzgerald is. Even though I misremembered what FSF actually wrote, I was safe in accusing him of being wrong. Wrong about clams, wrong about salmon — wrong for America!
February 20, 2008 at 3:21 pm
John Emerson
Such problems are especially tricky in editing Fitzgerald. Because he had trouble getting things right, it is difficult to credit him with purposefully getting things wrong. Gatsby’s claim to be a midwesterner from San Francisco indicates his autobiographical unreliability; but some readers have regarded it as Fitzgerald’s blunder.
February 20, 2008 at 3:29 pm
John Emerson
I had to make two little changes: there are no tides in Lake Superior, as Rex Lardner told me and I have verified the fact, and this made it necessary to attribute the danger of the yacht to wind.
Actually Lake Superior has teentsy-weentsy little tides. “About every 12 hours and 25 minutes it’s “high tide” on Minnesota’s coast. With a subtle tug, the moon pulls Lake Superior skyward by less than several centimeters, a measure so modest it’s easily masked by waves and swamped by seiches (seiches are defined on the back page of this newsletter).”
Sorry, I can’t stop. Fitzgerald has that power over me.
February 20, 2008 at 3:53 pm
eric
No, by all means, do go ahead. That’s why we’re here.
February 20, 2008 at 4:09 pm
John Emerson
See, Fitzgerald spreads havoc everywhere. Even people who try to correct him get pulled into the tar pit of error. The man was born under a bad sign indeed. Where Fitzgerald has been, truth is not.
February 20, 2008 at 4:19 pm
urbino
I heard he once misquoted a man, just for snoring.
February 20, 2008 at 4:27 pm
eric
Which superpower would you rather have, to lie like Hemingway or err like Fitzgerald?
February 20, 2008 at 5:28 pm
andrew
how target-rich Fitzgerald is
This sounds like a reason to “correct” Fitzgerald for Hemingway’s mistakes.
February 22, 2008 at 5:51 am
Carrawayblogging § Unqualified Offerings
[...] Daisy Buchanan’s father, like Barack Obama and John McCain, sire black babies? An intriguing theory from Eric Rauchway. Quite a lot of attention paid to the "the man Goddard" passage made famous or infamous [...]
September 20, 2008 at 3:31 pm
mlec91283
Hello…your theory is intriguing, but I believe there is a more plausible explanation concerning Daisy’s ancestry. I remember taking an American Studies class back in 2002-2003, whereupon I read “The Great Gatsby” a second time. The passage you cite – where Tom Buchanan articulates his theories on race and society – was addressed in this class. The professor, who was an expert on American Studies, stated that Tom’s hesitance to label Daisy as part of the elite white race revolved around the fact that Daisy was Irish. He cited her last name as being proof of this; apparently, Fay is an Irish surname. Considering that The Great Gatsby was written in the 1920s at the height of the Know-Nothings and other anti-immigrant sentiment that Tom would probably have subscribed to, it certainly seems logical. Then, of course, most Irish-Americans were (and are) Catholic; when Myrtle’s cousin tells Nick that Tom can’t divorce his wife because she is Catholic, Nick thinks to himself that Daisy is not of this religious group. Now, his response is ambiguous, and could mean that Daisy has become a lapsed Catholic in order to fit in better into society, or that Daisy, being from the South, could have descended from the many Irish Protestants who settled this region. But I think that Daisy’s Irish ancestry seems to be the most probable explanation.
September 20, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Jason B
andrew: If he’s Lutheran, that also casts doubt on the idea of his Slavic background.
Both sides of my family are Minnesotan going back three generations. On my mother’s side it’s full-blown, stereotypical Scandinavians. On my father’s side it’s half-Norwegian and half Bohemian Czech. All of those families were Lutheran, so while the Lutheran Slav might seem doubtful, as you say, it’s certainly possible in fiction since it has been actual in my family history.
Of course, maybe Bohemians are a poor sort of Slav, but we do what we can.
September 20, 2008 at 10:57 pm
andrew
That’s odd, I don’t remember making that comment or what I was trying to say. (It was some months ago.) Maybe I just spaced out – or I was thinking specifically of Minnesota having more northern European immigrants (but as you say, your family is Minnesotan). Anyway, yeah, there are Lutherans who are Slavic and I don’t know why I suggested that there aren’t.
September 20, 2008 at 11:33 pm
urbino
Time to lay off the sauce?
October 22, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Richard Peabody
We just printed a piece by James C.L. Brown on Daisy’s “passing” in Gatsby in Gargoyle #53. He presented the essay at the F. Scott Conference in St. Paul in 2002. And as a lifetime F. Scott buff I was blown away because I think now that the fact that Daisy is Black (by the definitions of the time) raises the book even higher in my estimation. I think too many people were blinded by the movie images. Jordan knows. And Tom suspects but knows by the end. And how this toys with Gatsby’s quest for the other is marvelous. He’s after a woman who is passing just like he is attempting to do.