The Great Gatsby: A Queer Analysis

Anonymous • June 12, 2025

Introduction

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald is a literary classic renowned for its critique on the American Dream. It is also quite notorious for its taboo topics and emphasis on romance and sexuality. It is for this reason that it should not be shocking to hear that there is a popular queer interpretation of the novel, particularly of the protagonist and narrator, Nick Carraway.

Although Nick is in a romantic relationship with another character of the opposite sex, Jordan Baker, there are multiple instances that allude to the possibility of him being queer, from homoerotic language to explicit scenes in the novel. Although Nick never outright states that he is a homosexual, that is not indicative of his heterosexuality. After all, Nick is widely considered to be an unreliable narrator, as no man who is truly honest and objective would have to constantly reaffirm such traits of reliability to his audience. Nick claims in the beginning of the novel that he is “inclined to reserve all judgements” (Fitzgerald 19). Yet, that is clearly not the case given his blatant distaste for characters such as Tom and Daisy, as well as evident admiration for Gatsby (which will be further discussed later on).

Historical Context

Before the analysis precedes, however, the time period in which the novel takes place and is written in must be taken into consideration. After all, the 1920’s is very different from present day, where gay marriage has been legal for nearly a decade in the U.S.

Homosexuality was a very controversial topic a century ago, as it was commonly believed to be some sort of disease or condition, as many suspected members of the LGBTQ+ community were sent to mental institutions to “cure” said condition, suffering many “treatments” before they could properly be reintegrated into society. In addition, some were forced to undergo electric shocks and even lobotomies. “Queer” and other terms were also used as derogatory names towards homosexuals, as the social stigma was quite prevalent at the time.

Despite these stigmas, however, the Harlem Renaissance was a time period emphasizing liberal ideals of acceptance and open-mindedness. The racial integration of black and white people helped create a sense of openness for not just racial minorities, but other ostracized groups as well, including members of the LGBTQ+ community. It was especially common in urban areas, specifically New York City, to have numerous establishments that supported same-sex couples. Private clubs and bars were common areas for gays and lesbians to gather peacefully. Even then, there were multiple police raids targeting these safe havens; physical and psychological violence towards queer people was quite prevalent, which was not stopped by the government–in fact, the government supported these acts of violence as the victims were accused of the “disease” of homosexuality.

Treatment toward queer people was far harsher in the South than in the North, due to the lack of urban areas and the influence of the Harlem Renaissance. The South was also renowned for heaving much stricter religious ideals, which was also likely a contributing factor to their severe treatment toward homosexuals. In addition, well-off queer people were allowed to participate in homosexual activity and even be open with their identity; a privilege not provided to gay members of the lower class.

But, one question prevails. What of Fitzgerald, the very author of the novel at the center of discussion? What were his opinions regarding homosexuality? Was he himself queer? Well, that is actually still up for debate. His wife, Zelda, certainly thought so, as she had called her husband multiple homophobic slurs and even accused him of having a homosexual relationship with fellow author, and a man he had a tumultuous friendship with, Ernest Hemingway. Zelda’s claim is, believe it or not, not entirely baseless.

Hemingway and Fitzgerald first met at a bar in Paris after The Great Gatsby was published, in which their friendship bloomed. Hemingway would describe his companion as his most loyal friend. Interestingly, Hemingway strongly disliked Zelda and even described her as “insane” in one of his memoirs. In one specific instance, Hemingway recounts a moment where Zelda taunted her husband about his penis’ size, making him insecure. Because of this, Fitzgerald and Hemingway compared sizes in a public restroom, in which the latter affirmed that Fitzgerald’s size to be average. Is this a common occurrence between two straight male friends in the 1920’s? That is to be heavily debated.

Unfortunately, Hemingway and Fitzgerald’s “friendship” fell apart and the two later became literary rivals. Fitzgerald would write in his notebook, “I really loved him, but of course it wore out like a love affair,” which is not a very heterosexual comment to make. Nonetheless, it should be noted that Fitzgerald was strongly against the accusations that he was queer. When his wife accused him of being homosexual, he hired a female prostitute to prove his heterosexuality. However, before his friendship with Hemingway, Fitzgerald claimed he was “half feminine” (possibly alluding to bisexuality) and even dressed up as a showgirl once. While pondering his possible homosexuality, Fitzgerald viewed it as the root cause for moral decay and a weakness. For consideration, many believe his homophobic view on the world began after his and Hemingway’s relationship ended.

What about before that time, when Fitzgerald was seemingly more tolerant? The Great Gatsby was published during this time, so it is possible that Fitzgerald’s perception of homosexuality could have been a large influence in his book and how he wrote certain scenes and dialogue. After all, it would be considered scandalous to write scenes where homosexuality is blatantly displayed in the early 20th century. So, how does the literary classic allow for queer interpretation? Well, that is to be discussed now.

Analysis

Now that the historical context regarding queerness in the 1920’s has been explained, the novel itself can now be thoroughly analyzed. When it comes to modern interpretation of The Great Gatsby, many have perceived the protagonist, Nick Carraway, to be a homosexual. But why is this the case? Why him, specifically? The most prevalent piece of evidence occurs at the end of Chapter 2.

For those unaware, Tom Buchanan, Nick’s cousin-in-law, invited Nick to a party along with Tom’s mistress, his mistress’s sister, and the McKees. Tom and his mistress, Myrtle, encourage Nick to pursue Myrtle’s sister, Catherine, and form a romantic relationship with her. Nick is not interested whatsoever, and refuses to make any advances towards her. Instead, he ends up leaving the party with Mr. McKee.

Now, who is Mr. McKee? Well, Nick describes him as follows: “Mr. McKee was a pale feminine man from the flat below. He had just shaved, for there was a white spot of lather on his cheekbone, and he was most respectful in his greeting to everyone in the room” (Fitzgerald 40). In great contrast, this is how Nick describes Mrs. McKee: “shrill, languid, handsome, and horrible” (Fitzgerald 40) with no further elaboration. There is a distinct difference in the way Nick describes the married couple, as Mr. McKee is provided a much more lengthy description with more positive wording, while his wife, on the other hand, is only given four words of description, three of which being quite negative. Although the other word, “handsome,” has a positive connotation, it appears to be negative in this context, indicating that she has a very masculine appearance. This unflattering description can be quite indicative of Nick’s lack of attraction to women (this will be elaborated on later). Not to mention, Mr. McKee’s description focuses much on his physical features, while Mrs. McKee’s description centered more so around her behavior. Mr. McKee’s femininity is meant to contrast his wife’s apparent masculinity, but, it can also serve as a way to indicate that Mr. McKee might be queer, as many queer men at the time were described as being quite feminine.

During the party, Nick pays a good amount of attention to the aforementioned spot of lather on McKee’s face, later wiping it off with his own handkerchief, which can be considered to be a quite intimate action, especially between two men who had their first meeting mere hours ago. The fact that he openly admitted to being concerned with it all afternoon can also be quite telling of Nick’s attentiveness to men. When the party ends, Nick leaves with McKee in the elevator. This scene in particular is what is the most telling of Nick’s sexuality. So, it is only proper to break it down bit by bit.

It begins with McKee inviting Nick out to lunch. “‘Come to lunch someday,’ he suggested as we groaned down the elevator. ‘Where?’ ‘Anywhere,’” (Fitzgerald 45). The usage of the word “groaned” immediately catches the reader’s attention and can be interpreted as sexual, possibly foreshadowing the events to follow. The scene continues as follows: “‘Keep your hands off the lever,’ snapped the elevator boy. ‘I beg your pardon,’ said Mr. McKee with dignity. ‘I didn’t know I was touching it,’” (Fitzgerald 45). This exchange is seemingly very odd, as it intercepts Nick and McKee’s conversation without providing much substance plot-wise. However, this lever can easily be interpreted as a phallic symbol, with McKee’s touch being the reason as to why the elevator “groaned.” The elevator boy snapping at McKee for touching the level, signifying male genitalia, could also potentially represent the perception of homosexuality at the time, and how it was taboo and publicly discouraged. After Nick accepts McKee’s invitation to lunch, the scene abruptly shifts. “. . . I was standing beside [McKee’s] bed and he was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear, with a great portfolio in his hands. ‘Beauty and the Beast . . . Loneliness . . . Old Grocery Horse . . . Brook’n Bridge . . . .’” (Fitzgerald 45-46). The scene change is very sudden and disorienting, especially given the context. What possible heterosexual reason is there for the protagonist to end up next to the bed of a man he left a party with, with said man being practically nude? Some might write it off as drunken nonsense, but that would just be willful ignorance to what the scene is clearly suggesting, that being that Nick and McKee had a one-night stand. The use of ellipses is also relatively striking, as this is the only time in the entire novel in which Fitzgerald (or Nick, as the writer) uses ellipses outside of dialogue. This could not only convey a sensual mood to the scene, but also that Nick is hiding something from the audience. Considering the fact that this scene also ends quite abruptly, it would appear that Nick would not want to go into much detail about what occurred, likely because he is a closeted homosexual who doesn’t want to reveal himself to the reader. After all, what other purpose would Fitzgerald have for adding this otherwise unimportant scene other than to convey the narrator’s repressed sexuality?

Mr. McKee is never mentioned again after this chapter ends, nor this encounter. Although this event seems quite indicative that Nick is, indeed, a homosexual, there is even more evidence to be considered. For instance, Nick’s respective descriptions of the McKee couple is not the only occasion in which Nick describes men in much more flattering and in-depth detail, as compared to the women of the novel. In the beginning of the novel, Nick arrives at Tom and Daisy’s house, where he also meets Daisy’s friend, Jordan. When Nick encounters Tom, he narrates, “Not even the effeminate swank of his riding clothes could hide the enormous power of that body—he seemed to fill those glistening boots until he strained the top lacing, and you could see a great pack of muscle shifting when his shoulder moved under his coat,” (Fitzgerald 23). This description has a notable sexual appeal to it, with Nick describing Tom’s muscles in great depth, giving the sentence a homoerotic tone. From an objective point of view, it would appear to be quite obvious that Nick finds Tom to be physically attractive given the description, as most heterosexual men would likely not provide so much detail on the body of another man in such a sultry manner.

Now, it is quite interesting for Tom to be described so sensually, given the fact that Nick evidently dislikes Tom as a person. So, how does this description compare to how Nick illustrates his love interest? Curiously, Jordan is described in a far less appealing fashion. “She was a slender, small-breasted girl with an erect carriage which she accentuated by throwing her body backward at the shoulders like a young cadet,” (Fitzgerald 26). Although Jordan is not described to be hideous looking, her description notably lacks the sexual appeal that was given to Tom, a male character. All the descriptive terms given to her have a neutral connotation and she is not provided much detail, in contrast to when Nick went into much depth specifically regarding Tom’s muscular body. Nick prefaces this by description by saying “I enjoyed looking at her,” (Fitzgerald 26), which can be interpreted in two ways that don’t necessarily contradict each other. The first interpretation being that this is an example of Nick’s unreliable narration; he immediately tells the reader that he enjoys looking at Jordan in order to convince them of his heterosexuality and to not raise suspicion. The other interpretation could be that Nick genuinely did enjoy looking at Jordan, but for alternative reasons than expected. Jordan is perceived to be quite masculine from this description, being compared to a “young cadet.” It is possible that Nick was fond of her partially because she had a more boyish appearance compared to other women, which might also be a key reason as to why the two began dating. If anything, it could be possible that Jordan was just an aesthetically pleasing person to look at, and Nick was seeing her in a way comparable to how people see models.

In addition, some literary critics even theorize that Jordan is also implied to be queer, with her being a lesbian. Although there is not as much evidence to support this claim in comparison to Nick (given the story is told from his perspective), there is still a decent amount to evaluate. Most apparent is Jordan’s appearance and her personality. While being athletic and not extremely feminine isn’t indicative of lesbianism, it is quite peculiar considering that Jordan is one of the very few female characters to be described in such a way (the only other being Mrs. McKee, but she was described in a derogatory manner). Moreover, Jordan’s attitude is also noticeably different from the other women in the novel. While Daisy is a delicate romantic and Myrtle a passionate flirt, Jordan is rather impassive with a cynical outlook on life, being more detached and independent than the other female characters. Her cynicism paired with her confidence, self-assurance, and athleticism are noted to be very stereotypical masculine traits, especially at the time.

Jordan’s gender nonconformity in regards to both her appearance and attitude make her stand out as a character, which can also be interpreted through her interactions with the male characters in the novel. Unlike Daisy and Myrtle, Jordan seems indifferent to the men around her, even Nick. While she does flirt with him, there is no clear evidence of any romantic pursuit or sexual attraction to him, a view that Nick seems to share. He says, “I wasn’t actually in love [with Jordan], but I felt a sort of tender curiosity,” (Fitzgerald 60). This line supports the idea that Nick wasn’t truly in love with Jordan despite being in a relationship with her, and it is very much possible that his curiosity could be stemmed from a recognized kinship with her due to her nonconforming nature.

Jordan is a convenient companion for Nick, and vice versa, as their relationship is primarily based on social situations involving mutual friends. They rarely share any physical intimacy with the exception of a few kisses, and overall don’t have many overt examples of their romantic relationship. This leads many literary critics to speculate that the two are meant to represent a “lavender relationship,” which is a term referring to heterosexual-appearing romantic relationships between gays and lesbians in order to hide their respective sexualities. It is entirely possible that Nick and Jordan only pursued a relationship with one another in order to hide their queer identities. It is also worth noting that Nick, the more widely speculated to be gay of the two, was paired with Jordan specifically, possibly hinting at the trope of pairing off the two supposedly queer characters together. After all, their relationship isn’t given much depth nor time to develop. Throughout the novel, Jordan seems more of a consistent character that is only background thought for Nick, which is interesting considering she is the love interest of the main protagonist. In the grand scheme of things, Jordan takes a backseat while it is actually Gatsby who seems to be at the forefront of Nick’s thoughts.

Some may brush this off, as the novel is quite literally named after Gatsby, meaning he would logically have the most attention. However, upon closer examination, it would appear that Nick has a much deeper infatuation with the man than a surface-level interest. From the very beginning of the novel, this is obvious. Nick writes, “Only Gatsby, the man who gives his name to this book, was exempt from my reaction—Gatsby who represented everything for which I have an unaffected scorn. If personality is an unbroken series of successful gestures, then there was something gorgeous about him…” (Fitzgerald 20). The very first thing the audience knows about Gatsby is that he is the only person Nick does not feel disillusioned with. This alone already contradicts Nick’s promise to reserve all judgement, as Gatsby automatically gets a pass, nobody else. Even though Nick admits in this same passage that Gatsby represents everything Nick hates, he cannot help but appreciate him, or even love him. This is because intense feelings, especially romantic ones, are not bound by the restrictions of logic and reason. The contradiction could also represent Nick’s internal struggle of repressing his queer identity, as his affection is wrapped in feelings of guilt or denial. The first word used to describe Gatsby is “gorgeous,” a word with an extremely sensual and intimate connotation, not commonly used by a man to describe another man’s personality, especially in the 1920’s. This usage of the word immediately provides a sense of attraction and infatuation on Nick’s part, which is only further supported as the story continues.

From their very first interaction, it would appear that Nick is immediately attracted and drawn to Gatsby. Nick says, “He smiled understandingly—much more than understandingly. It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life. It faced—or seemed to face—the whole eternal world for an instant, and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favour. It understood you just so far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you as you would like to believe in yourself, and assured you that it had precisely the impression of you that, at your best, you hoped to convey,” (Fitzgerald 53). It may appear unnecessary for the entire quote to be provided, but it is integral to see truly how deep Nick’s attraction to Gatsby goes. Nick rambles on and on about Gatsby’s smile, analyzing every little detail of it and speaking as if the smile was created just to comfort and understand him (which is something many people cannot discern from a simple smile). It may seem unnecessarily long to the reader, but it is only natural for one to speak a surplus amount in regards to the person they are romantically attracted to. Let it be known that Gatsby only properly introduced himself to Nick a mere two lines prior to this lengthy description. In comparison to how Nick describes Jordan, the description of Gatsby’s smile alone is far more romantic and makes all other character descriptions pale in comparison.

Over the course of the narrative, Nick and Gatsby develop a stronger bond and quickly become close friends. They grow quite close, enough where Gatsby feels comfortable requesting Nick to set up a meeting with him and Daisy, Gatsby’s very first love. This is one of the many instances in which Nick acts hypocritically and contrasts his words with his actions, as he abandons his neutrality mentality and decides to intervene in his cousin’s marriage for a man he barely knows. Despite this initial decision to help, Nick later goes on to criticize Gatsby and Daisy’s love affair. Not for the cheating, though, but rather Daisy’s character and Gatsby’s obsession with the past. Nick recognizes that Gatsby is only in love with his idealized version of Daisy from five years prior, and not the Daisy in the present, who would find it impossible to live up to Gatsby’s immense and unrealistic expectations. Nick confronts Gatsby about this, saying he can’t repeat the past, but the other man passionately refutes this, saying it is possible, it has to be possible. Some interpret Nick’s disapproval of their relationship to be a form of jealousy in addition to his rationale, but there is no concrete evidence to support this claim.

In the end, it is Nick who is proven correct, as Daisy refuses to go back to Gatsby, deciding to stay with Tom instead, as shown in the hotel scene where Daisy claims that she loved Tom and loves Gatsby and how that should be enough. Shortly after, Daisy accidentally runs over Tom’s mistress, Myrtle, while she is driving Gatsby’s car. Gatsby, still undeniably enamoured with her, decides to take the blame for the manslaughter. Daisy, aware that Gatsby would do absolutely anything for her, uses that to her advantage and lets him take the fall for the crime, showing her selfishness and disregard for morals. Nick disdains Daisy for this, calling her careless for her cowardly actions, feeling immense sympathy for Gatsby, his dear friend.

In Gatsby and Nick’s last interaction, Nick can’t help but feel a deep sense of loyalty to Gatsby. The other man still believes that Daisy will eventually reciprocate his feelings, but Nick knows that is not possible. He says, “It wasn’t a decent stroke of work but it was more than that—I didn’t want to leave Gatsby. I missed that train, and then another, before I could get myself away,” (Fitzgerald 134). Rationally, Nick knows there is no practical reason to stay, but he can’t help but feel a moral obligation to Gatsby. He says it was more than a decent stroke of work, implying Nick’s motivation for wanting to stay is emotional and so intimate it cannot be properly put into words. He is so reluctant to leave Gatsby that he misses multiple of his trains, something that he would very likely not do for any other character. When he does eventually part with Gatsby, he gives the man one final compliment: “‘They’re a rotten crowd,’ I shouted, across the lawn. ‘You’re worth the whole damn bunch put together.’ I’ve always been glad I said that. It was the only compliment I ever gave him, because I disapproved of him from beginning to end,” (Fitzgerald 134). This line is extremely intimate, as Nick essentially confesses to Gatsby that he is more important than all the other people in his life in a moment of raw sincerity. Nick notes that he was glad he told Gatsby that, suggesting a feeling of tenderness and longing. Despite Nick claiming he always disapproved of Gatsby, his actions and thoughts prove otherwise, once again showing that he is an unreliable narrator. While it is true that Nick disapproved of Gatsby’s illegal methods to gain wealth and fruitless pursuit of Daisy, he still sees Gatsby as someone who has risen above the rest. This is because of Nick’s unwavering admiration for Gatsby’s relentless hope and romanticism that none of the others could measure up to due to their selfishness. His claimed disapproval of Gatsby can also be representative of the inherent irrationality of love; even though he is aware Gatsby is objectively not a good person, he can’t help but love him anyway. He finds Gatsby noble, and even if his methods aren’t pure, his intentions are, which is why Nick feels so drawn to the other man, possibly in a romantic sense. After all, it is fairly common for people to place their besotted ones on a pedestal, even if it is unrealistic. In that sense, Nick’s infatuation with Gatsby can even be compared to Gatsby’s infatuation with Daisy.

Nick’s description of Gatsby’s reaction to his compliment is also rich with emotion and queer subtext: “First [Gatsby] nodded politely, and then his face broke into that radiant and understanding smile, as if we’d been in ecstatic cahoots on that fact all the time,” (Fitzgerald 134). Nick and Gatsby’s final interaction parallels their first, tying back to Nick’s detailed description of Gatsby’s smile. Gatsby’s smile is described as not just friendly nor joyful, but radiant, suggesting a feeling of affection that transcends simple companionship. The implication that they’ve been in “ecstatic cahoots” is also quite intimate, suggesting the two men have a deep, understanding relationship. In the line that follows immediately after, Nick says, “His gorgeous pink rag of a suit made a bright spot of colour against the white steps,” (Fitzgerald 134). Similarly to earlier in the novel, the word “gorgeous” is used again, a tender word that Nick seems to only reserve for Gatsby and Gatsby alone. Gatsby being a “bright spot of color” also suggests that he stands out from everyone else in Nick’s life, being a vivid and bright presence in an otherwise sterile and rigid world of old money.

By the end, when Gatsby reaches his ultimate demise, it is only Nick, Gatsby’s father, and Owl Eyes (a minor character who was simply curious on who Gatsby was as a person & also symbolizes the ability to see past illusion) who attend the man’s funeral. Gatsby hosted numerous parties and had multiple associates, but no real friends. Nick was the only person who saw Gatsby who he truly was, a feat not even Daisy held, as Nick stayed loyal to him until the very end. When Klipspringer refused to attend Gatsby’s funeral and Tom admitted to being the indirect cause of Gatsby’s murder, Nick is furious with the two men, feeling a sense of loathing toward them Nick has not expressed before. He internally ridicules Tom and Daisy for their careless and selfish behavior, not just for moral reasons, but also as a result of his heartbreak and deep sadness following Gatsby’s death. Nick was the only one who genuinely cared.

From his heavily implied feelings toward Gatsby, to his wildly contrasting descriptions of men and women, to his blatant affair with Mr. McKee, it would not be a stretch to say that Nick is heavily implied to be a closeted homosexual. Nick’s narration in the novel is a key factor in this interpretation, as it reveals his innermost thoughts and feelings. However, this would be difficult to convey in movie adaptations. So, do the movies successfully represent the same queer themes as the novel? For a simple and concise answer: no, they do not.

Film Adaptations

When adapting a novel into a feature film, there are almost always changes to the story, as shown with popular film adaptations such as Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. But, considering The Great Gatsby is considered one of America’s best literary classics, the directors would do their best to remain as book-accurate as possible, right?

This is not the case, especially in regards to Nick’s ambiguous sexuality. When a book is adapted into film, the usage of imagination is limited, as now the audience doesn’t have to use their brain to visualize story beats, since it’s already provided. This is especially important when looking at the scene with Nick and Mr. McKee following the party at the end of Chapter 2. Although a one-night stand is likely what happened, the description is still very vague, which is why Nick’s sexuality is still widely debated today, as the affair being explicitly stated would be confirmation that Nick is queer. But, how does one manage to adapt that scene of Mr. McKee being in bed in only his underwear without the homoerotic implications? That’s the thing; they don’t.

There are five film adaptations of The Great Gatsby, one of which being a silent film from 1926 which has been lost to time, aside from its trailer. From the four films that have been preserved, not a single one has adapted the scene with Nick and Mr. McKee, and it would be fair to assume the silent film likely didn’t, as well. This is because the most recent film adaptation was in 2013, and gay marriage was only legalized in the U.S. in 2016. Homosexuality has, throughout history, been an extremely taboo topic and its existence either shunned or blatantly ignored. The film industry is no exception. The adaptation of the Nick and Mr. McKee scene would be too scandalous to ever adapt, especially for the years 1949, as the Hays’ Code (moral guidelines restricting anything deemed inappropriate from being portrayed in Hollywood) was still in place. Even during the years in which the subsequent movies were filmed, 1974, 2000, and 2013, homosexuality was still relatively indecorous in the movie industry. While the reader can interpret the McKee scene as sexual or non-sexual, the actors portraying it in film would make any alternate interpretation void. And how would two actors manage to portray this scene without possibly suggesting something sexual occurred? If it is possible, it would be extremely difficult, meaning that many directors have purposely chosen to ignore the scene altogether. Not for lack of trying, however.

In 1974, Truman Capote was tasked with writing a screenplay for the new The Great Gatsby film, which was rejected by Bob Evans and a new script was created. Baz Luhrmann, the director of the 2013 adaptation, discussed the contents of the draft, saying that it made both Jordan and Nick queer characters. The script, albeit unfinished, has been published for public viewing. While this script also contains no scene with Mr. McKee, Capote does make his intended queer agenda known. In the screenplay, background characters speculate about Gatsby’s sexuality and it even contains a scene of Nick and Gatsby skinny dipping together. Given the time period, the screenplay was obviously rejected, opting for a more heterosexual adaptation, with even more Gatsby & Daisy moments than seen in the novel.

The 2000’s film, there is also no queer subtext present. However, there is one major change the movie does that makes it stand out from the previous films, and even the book. In the novel, right before Gatsby dies, he tells his butler to mind the phone, hoping Daisy will eventually call. The phone doesn’t ring once and Gatsby is shot dead in the pool. In this movie, however, the phone does ring. But before Gatsby can pick it up, he is killed. The scene then changes to reveal that it was actually Nick who had called Gatsby, not Daisy. This creates a direct parallel between Nick and Daisy’s love and appreciation of Gatsby, proving Nick’s love was more real all along. In the end, Nick is the one who brings comfort to Gatsby in his final moments. Other than that change, though, the film has nothing else that could suggest Nick was a homosexual.

The 2013 film also has the phone switch from the previous film, but, if anything, it tries to make Nick seem more straight than in the novel. The party Nick attends in Chapter 2 with Tom and Myrtle is much more dramatic than in the novel. In the novel, Catherine merely leans close to Nick and whispers in his ear about Gatsby, nothing more. In stark contrast, in the movie, Catherine is placed on Nick’s lap and the two make out. Luhrmann is aware of the queer interpretation of The Great Gatsby, and chooses to explicitly go against it. He does make a statement saying that Nick’s feelings for Gatsby are deeply intimate, but he does not believe they are physically romantic.

So, even a century after The Great Gatsby has been published, there is still no proper film adaption of Nick’s suspected queerness. The Broadway Musical also doesn’t contain any Mr. McKee scene, and even adds additional romantic moments between Jordan and Nick, as well as Gatsby and Daisy. Despite this, it is still possible for future adaptations to explore this queer interpretation and properly adapt the homoerotic scenes.

Conclusion

Now, here’s the ultimate question: is Nick Carraway really queer? The answer: it’s complicated. The Great Gatsby, like all renowned novels, has many modern interpretations, which could all be applicable. It is for this reason that there exists both a queer reading of The Great Gatsby, as well a heterosexual reading, which could both be feasibly correct.

The 1920’s, although it was the beginning of a very subversive and accepting era, still held many prejudices, especially in regards to homosexuals and lesbians. If the main protagonist of Fitzgerald’s novel was an openly queer man, then the book would likely have never gotten published at all. And considering that Fitzgerald’s own sexuality is still up for interpretation, it is not impossible that Nick was implied to be queer.

Nick not being open about his homosexuality isn’t indicative of his heterosexuality. Queerness was taboo at the time, especially outside of the New England area that was affected by the liberal philosophies of the Harlem Renaissance. Nick is also unmarried at the age of thirty, which is very common for queer people during the time, as most heterosexual people at that age already start their families. Given that Nick grew up in Minnesota, which is a more rural state in the Midwest, he would likely keep his sexuality even more repressed than if he grew up in New York (where the novel takes place). Nick is an unreliable narrator, after all; he is not inclined to tell the reader the truth about his sexuality.

It is Nick’s actions and thoughts that are indicative of his potential queer identity. As mentioned earlier, Nick’s description of men in contrast to his description of women are very telling of the gender he physically favors more, as not even his own love interest is exempt from this rule. Gatsby, especially, is heavily implied to be the main subject of Nick’s affection. Gatsby embodies the American Dream, with his immense wealth and self-made success. Nick pursues this dream, and thus, he is drawn to Gatsby and the man’s incredible capacity to hope. Gatsby is the only man undeserving of Nick’s disgust, and when he dies, Nick’s pursuit of the American Dream dies with him. By the end of the novel, Nick is truly disillusioned with the world and the people around him. His emotional connection to Gatsby, which can also be read as unrequited love, symbolizes how society tends to project their desires onto something unattainable and larger than life.

Even so, it was only Nick who remained loyal to Gatsby in the end. When no one else attended his funeral, it was Nick who set up the arrangements and was one of the very few to attend. It was Nick who saw Gatsby as a real person, not an idea, something that not even Daisy, Gatsby’s love, did. Objectively, Nick was Gatsby’s true love all along. Whether that is to be interpreted romantically or not, is up to the reader’s decision.

Sources

The Great Gatsby: A Queer Analysis

The Paw Print

Comments (0)