*Rich Boy* the Shrinking American Middle Class and *South Park*

http://www.businessinsider.com/22-statistics-that-prove-the-middle-class-is-being-systematically-wiped-out-of-existence-in-america-2010-7


          There are multiple issues in the economy today that are resulting in the shrinkage of the American middle class.  The middle class is a topic that has not been covered in our class but is equally as relevant as the upper and lower classes.   *Rich Boy* exhibits upper class ambitions that result in a young man ascending to the upper class through receiving a first rate education.  Ambitions such as his are a part of the reason that the middle class is shrinking, but this article reveals the even greater issue of the competition for and the exportation of labor.  There are many of people in other countries far more desperate and willing to work for extremely low wages that middle class and even some lower class Americans cannot survive on.  The American dream is being exported to places such as India and removing the money from circulation in our own economy.  I'm no economist, and I can't say that I have a firm grasp on concepts of pecuniary circulation, but this article gave me a pretty concrete idea of what is going on in today's economy and why the middle class is decreasing.
          I wanted to briefly note the prolific ammount of references to this issue in pop culture, particularly in the show South Park.  South Park began as a generally crude-humored program, and although offensive and frequently inappropriate, it have grown to expose current cultural issues and satirize American values and events.  One episode is a parody of "The Grapes of Wrath", expect it mocks the loss of internet in one area resulting in a mass migration to Silicon Valley, California famous far and wide for its abundance of electronics and wireless resources.  An episode which directly addresses the issue of labor exportation is called "Goo Backs", a made up slur for an imaginary race of peoples that come to our time from the distant future, stealing jobs because they are willing to work for next to nothing and then returning to their own time where the minimal wages are worth millions.  This leaves the present middle class angry and out of jobs, breeding hate towards the "Goo Backs".
          This trajectory of thought brought me to the realization that class issues are not simply confined to our own country, but extend internationally.  This international competition due to the significant global economy generates negative feelings between many cultures let alone classes.  It is interesting to trace the root of many cultural tensions and discover that money has been the root.  Is money truly the root of all evil?  It creates divisions within countries and between countries, but can you really eliminate a class system, which would most likely result in the elimination of ambition and drive to work?   These are complicated questions that have occurred to me throughout the course and my cross-references between literature and media.  I'm not sure how many answers I have come to or will be able to come to in the future, but the examination and discussion of our texts have certainly made me aware of and sensitive to class values, monetary status and the problems that can ensue.

Osama Bin Laden....was also a "Rich Boy"

          http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?scp=8&sq=Rich%20Boy%20&st=cse

         My search for information on the release and public perception of the novel, *Rich Boy*, coincided with the overwhelming onslaught of media frenzy over Osama Bin Laden's death.  Typing "rich boy" into the search engine actually yielded results about Bin Laden's upbringing.  Although his wealth is not surprising I learned that he was born into one of Saudi Arabia's most affluent families, wealth that he later used as an adult to finance major terrorist attacks carried out by Al Qaeda.  In reading our most recent novel and in hearing about the past of one of the most evil figures of my own time,  I began to contemplate the concept of conspicuous leisure that many of our protagonists strive for or attain.
         In the novel Robert frustrated me;  his attempts to forge an entirely new identity in an upper class setting suggested his distaste for where he came from.  As he rises socially he begins to believe that being well endowed financially will somehow be fulfilling.  His dissatisfaction with his life as a child and young adult leads to his struggle to be someone and something more, which to him means becoming rich.  This gives him a sense of purpose, although it does not appear to give him very much satisfaction in life as he decays morally.  Osama Bin Laden is a severely emphasized case of the dangers of the idle rich.  Born with money, he too may have sought more purpose in life and his moral degeneration was advanced by a privileged life-style.  Throughout the course our novels have exemplified the dangers of wealth, and the evils that can take hold of affluent people.  Bin Laden is an excellent reminder that this sort of evil exists in real life.  Not everyone donates their millions to starving children in Africa like Oprah or Angelina Jolie.  Some dedicate their wealth to the mass murder of innocent people.  Many even make their millions from child labor, drug trafficking and human trafficking.
          This sort of corruption begs the question, what is it that we are striving for when we seek wealth?  There are people like Robert who are in the early stages of corruption and seeking empty goals, but eventually that can and does develop into people like Bin Laden who seek goals formed by an entirely warped perception of morality.  What do we hope to gain by becoming rich?  At first it might be the large house, the nice cars and the designer labels on our clothes.  However, for many this is not enough.  These material items become commonplace and unsatisfactory and what's next then?  What will be a person's new goal in life?  Feed the starving children?  Build the underprivileged a school?  Or finance massive terrorist attacks that shock and devastate human-kind?

Author of *Schooled*, What a Hypocrite

          Anisha Lakhani's book, in my opinion, was ridiculous and not in a good way.  Her message was too overstated, treating her reader like an idiot, and her writing style made me feel as though I was leafing through a less sexed-up version of Gossip Girl.  She trivializes the behavior of the affluent population in her novel, making them all stuck-up, ignorant, and entirely tacky.  The self-righteous character, Anna Taggert (who seems to be modeled after Lakhani, as is the overall Langdon experience), makes me want to punch a baby.
          After doing a little research on Lakhani I only disliked her more.  She is no better than the spoiled children and ignorant parents she writes about.  She used her wealthy husband's (now ex) money to back her book and become a "success".  A photo search shows her dressed in some incredibly obnoxious outfits and her shitzu is her primary and most prized companion.  Really?  I'm fine with people having monstrous amounts of money and loving their toy-poodles and Gucci bags more than life itself, but please, just don't be such a hypocrite.  Her entire book seems to be a judgment of this lifestyle and the ways in which people acquire what they want, but overall she is no better than her characters.  Hopefully she's aware of this, and hopefully she finds someone to dedicate her future writings to besides her 6 pound dog.

A Marxist Approach to *Schooled*

Throughout Lakhani's novel, Schooled, there is a discernable class distinction between Langdon's teachers and its students.  Anna, a recent graduate of the prestigious Columbia University, has decided to take the path of teaching at an elite private school in Manhattan.  She has every intention of educationally bettering the lives of her students but soon finds herself being manipulated by their millionaire parents who essentially control the school system.  This educational structure serves as an example of a Marxist perspective of capitalism.  Marx established his belief that capitalism is an entity comprised of the proletariat, the widely oppressed and manipulated majority of the populace, that works to the advantage of the bourgeoisie, the marginal but wealthy ruling class.  Within the school system teachers and tutors make up the proletariat, oppressed and manipulated by the bourgeoisie class of their student's parents.  This novel exhibits that capitalism and the elitist behaviors of manipulation that results are ultimately inescapable in any system where significant disparities between social classes exist.

                        In the beginning of the storyline the reader is presented with Anna's perception of corporate exploitation, which justifies her entrance into a world of teaching that she believes will contrast workings of economic organizations. She expresses her desire to escape corporatism and materialism, dejected by even the thought of having to drive her parents "luxury car that promoted the evil empire" to the train station (5).  Her friend Bridgette is presented as the type of corporate slave that Anna refuses to become, strutting in her Jimmy Choo heels and attending high-class functions that will only get her addicted to luxury and therefore the long hours that can afford it.  Anna accepts a position at Langdon to avert the fate of her friend and evade the depravity of capitalism. However, Anna's idealized vision of a pristine teaching job is exposed as a sphere of capitalist influence in which she is the proletariat.  On orientation day she is presented with a personal laptop, a token of her first bribe similar to the elegant dinners awarded to her friend Bridgette.  As she is introduced to her students she discovers that her position as teacher and the small luxuries she does have come at a price of subservience.  Her seventh grade English class quickly informs her that on certain days, such as bar mitvahs and Yom Kippur, she cannot assign homework and that they will not tolerate a breach of these privileges.  She initially attempts to resist the entitlement of these children, and brings it to the school's attention when she finds that her co-worker Randi has been doing student's work for them.  Despite her moral efforts, she is forced to push incidents such as these to the back of her mind at the request of Langdon's headmaster and subsequently conforms to the will of Langdon parents whom exercise their money as a form of power. 

                        Through her own acceptance of a role as an over-paid tutor that literally does the schoolwork of her clientele, Anna is swallowed up into a proletariat of teachers and tutors ruled by a parental bourgeoisie.  In her struggle to be more like the elite class in her material assets and conspicuous consumption she degrades her values as an educator for their benefit.  The bourgeoisie population of the school system exploits the minimal income of their teachers and uses their affluence as a tool through which their children can achieve high-marks.  These parents are thrilled with Anna as long as she is supporting their efforts at constructing academically artificial child prodigies.  They supply her with big fat checks and other material perks in addition to their undying gratitude for her dishonest undertakings on homework assignments and essays.  However, this friendly association is shattered when Anna eventually can't take the pressure of tutoring any longer and chooses to award grades fairly and not based on monetary assets.  It is at this point in time that the displeased parents grow hostile, sending Anna nasty personal messages and even complaining about her behavior to the administration.  Clearly this bourgeoisie assembly is only appreciative of the system when they are manipulating it.

                        Anna entered Langdon with hopes that a profession as noble as teaching would provide her with a safe haven from the morally poisoned domain of capitalism, quelling material obsession and class divisions.   Unfortunately she discovers that the realm of schooling encompasses all the competition and socio-economic ruptures she would encounter at any banking job.   The elite wealthy take advantage of the less well off; they simply wear the face of parents and teachers instead of CEOs and blue-collar masses.  The bourgeoisie manipulates a range of systems, which they arrange in a flawed manner skewed to their own advantage.  Anna's disapproval and struggle to amend these injustices displays the negative backlash that would ensue should the elite be challenged.  Overall, Schooled illustrates that even in small and seemingly innocent institutions such as schools, financial markers of class engineer omnipresent capitalist philosophies that permit the bourgeoisie exploitation of the proletariat.

                       

                       

                        

The Poorest Place in the U.S. ....Not Like the Beans

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/morning-buzz-poorest-place-in-the-u-s/?scp=1&sq=severe%20poverty%20in%20US&st=cse

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/05/ground-zero-civil-liberties-paul-harris

These little blurbs summarize the conditions of the poorest place in America, Kiryas Joel, NY.  Unlike the unfamiliar and disturbing lifestyle of the Beans the peoples of this area are not the picture of poverty.  They live in fairly nice apartments in the suburb of Orange County, NY.  However, 70 percent of the village's income falls below the poverty threshold.  What does differentiate their population from what we consider normal are the beliefs they practice, a large portion of the community are practicing Ultra-Orthodox Satmar Hasidic Jews.  Their lifestyle entails marrying at a very young age and producing large families as a result of birth control being banned.  Although it is depressing that so many people in one place live below the poverty threshold, it is a breath of fresh air to see an impoverished community that contrasts so heavily with the construction of the Beans.  The crime rate is non-existent in this village, suggesting little violence or immoral conduct, and the lack of wealth is not apparent in their style of dress or cleanliness.  It is important to remember that being poor does not necessarily mean a community is degenerate, and the town of Kiryas Joel provides an excellent example of the respectability of a group despite their minimal income. 

The Numinous and "The Beans of Egypt, Maine"

          This novel was demoralizing, to say the least.  However, I found its disturbing nature intriguing.  What is it about the squalor and degeneration of the human condition that captivates many people?  The effects of the numinous are what evoked my interest.  The experience of the numinous is comprised of two main components: the mysterium tremendum and the mysterium fascinans.  The mysterium trendum is  the concept of invoking fear, and the mysterium fascinans is the ability of a subject to fascinate and compel.  Both of these concepts appeal to the human psyche.  This sort of psychological approach to drawing an audience is often employed in horror movies and science fiction.   Chuter's novel depicts a population that is so unfamiliar and shocking to her reader that it draws on the mysterium tremendum and fascinans.  Amongst the Beans there are members that are murderous, incestuous, and lustful.  In addition, many of them have addiction, which I would not categorizes with the other traits that are considered immoral and or sinful.  The fact that these traits are part of the numinous and are unfamiliar suggests that they are not normal.  The numinous allows us to reflect upon concepts of normalcy and to deconstruct them.  This is certainly apparent in reactions to writings such as the Beans.

Single Mother's in "The Women of Brewster Place"

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=1045649&page=1

I was doing a bit of research on single mothers after reading "The Women of Brewster Place" and I found this article from ABC News.  It's a really interesting piece which is definitely relatable to Mattie's difficulties as a single mother.  Some of these women can definitely empathize with her over-protective and worrisome nature because if some aspect of a child seems "off" the mother is usually blamed regardless of whether or not he/she has a father.  One term I did find interesting was "Momism" which is said to have been coined in the 1950s and refers to a mother who is so overprotective that she fosters selfish and spoiled tendencies in her child.  This sort of terminology could be applied to Mattie's treatment of Basil, especially considering his resulting behavior and ultimate departure from his mother's life.  The relationship between a mother and son and the correct conduct, particularly for single mothers, is extremely controversial and has historically been (falsely) assumed to be responsible for homosexuality, autism and even schizophrenia.

Interesting Contrast of Familial Relationships in "Women of Brewster Place"

          So far in our readings it has been fairly simple to associate a certain family structure with different class groups.  However, "Women of Brewster Place" illustrates a much more complicated family structure which is extremely inconsistent.  These discrepancies in family values are most apparent in Mattie's story.
          Initially I sensed that Mattie's family was incredibly close and had strong values of what it means to be a family.  Her father would do anything for her, as is illustrated by stories of him buying her new fashionable shoes and his skipping work to stay at her bedside when she is sick.  An earlier scene opens on Mattie feeding the family chickens, tending to her responsibilities.  She nearly turns down going on a walk with Butch Fuller because she is so concerned with her father's opinion of the young man.  These familial bonds quickly dissolve, as Mattie chooses to go on a walk with Butch has sex with him out by the edge of the woods.  This is a youthful betrayal of her father's trust.  When Mattie gets pregnant she refuses to tell her father who is responsible for her condition and he viciously beats her.  He is stunned at his own reaction and at finding faults in his precious only child.  The family bond is ultimately weakened when Mattie leaves home with her new born child Basil.  Her father has been somewhat stripped of his role as a patriarch by the defiance of his daughter.
          There is a similar degeneration in the bond between Basil and Mattie.  Their relationship is heavily influenced by the fact the Mattie puts Basil before anything and anyone else.  As he grows older he becomes aware of her loyalty and he takes advantage of it.  She sells a house that is of great importance in order to get Basil out of jail even though he only has to remain there for two weeks.  Soon after, Basil abandons his mother.  In this dynamic Basil, the child, holds the power breaking down the traditional value of respecting elders and particularly parents.  Like her father's loss of patriarchal power, Mattie has been robbed of her authority as a mother.
           The issues within these family structures are relevant because they are largely inconsistent with those we view in other novels.  Typically members of a middle class, those who make enough for necessities and a few luxuries, have a strong family structure.  Prior to their illusions of wealth, Alek and Sally had a strong family system, as did the Laphams.  Mattie is in a comfortable financial position with her family, which thematically would lead me to believe they would have stable and consistent family values. The fact that Naylor breaks this theme down in her portrayal of the Michaels hints at the dysfunction of families when power dynamics are altered.

The Dust Bowl and "Okies".

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/water_06.html

I found this website and I thought it provided some interesting background information on the dust bowl, farming, and the movement West in the 1930s.  It also covers history following the dust bowl which gives us some sort of basis for imagining what might have happened to families who stayed or to the homes that were left.

Fitzgerald's View of the Rich in *The Great Gatsby*

          I think one of Fitzgerald's most revealing paragraphs into the minds of the rich comes early on in the novel.  On page three there is a paragraph in which Nick describes his decision to go into the bond business and go to the East.  This paragraph begins with Nicks explaining how much he looks like his great uncle, whom he has never seen except for a painting that hangs in his father's office.  He goes on to state that he graduated from "New Haven" just a quarter of a century after his father.  The most notable aspect of these statements  is how he establishes his blood-line and the relevance of ancestry.  Especially in the tradition of old money, carrying on ancestral values is very important.  It is only fitting that Nick would point out how alike he is in appearance to his uncle, and how he received the same education as his father from New Haven, which is actually Yale (but if you are a member of his class you would know that New Haven and Yale are apparently interchangeable terms).  This conveys a sense of entitlement which is further enhanced by his decision to go into the bond business.
          He informs the reader that everybody he knows is in the bond business so it could surely support one more single man.  In conferring with his family they all seem to agree after talking it over as if they were choosing a prep school.  It is apparent that this family believes if they think his career choice is a good idea than that is that and he will be successful.  However, their sense of entitlement is not what determines success in the real world.  Nick departs with unrealistic expectations that he will be out East permanently with his father's backing for the first year.  His initial seed out East is not planted by his own hand, but by his father's backing.  Already, he has began a career on somebody else's merit and he anticipates that his last name and breeding will guarantee him further success.
          This concept of entitlement based on breeding is also corroborated by Tom's dialogue on page thirteen.  He rants about the scientific studies about the Nordics (people like Tom and Nick) as the dominant race.  The dominant race's duty is to suppress other races or else control will be lost and civilization will go to hell.  Not only does their sense of entitlement stem from a family name and class standing, but also from racial backgrounds.  These are two attributes that they were born with, descended from, underscoring the preposterous concept that entitlement to success and power is inherent not earned.

The Importance of Animals in *Grapes of Wrath*

          In reading Dana's post about the land turtle I was drawn to Steinbeck's general use of animals thus far in his novel.  Not only are some of these creatures great symbols, as Dana pointed out, but they also expose the distinct link between humans and animals.  As a result of the animals being strongly relatable to humans, the reader is forced to recognize qualities and behaviors that are inherent in all living things; the will to survive and the impulsive, and possibly sinful, forces that overcome all people from time to time in order to do so are natural.
          One of the first critters that is truly explored is the land turtle.  This turtle's journey is described as a struggle.  This struggle is defined by Steinbeck's word choice:  crawled, dragging, boosted, threshed, climb, clawed, reached, kicked, scraped, pushing, strained, slipped, braced, strained, scratched, worked, waggling, flipped, spun, rolled, flopped and slipped.  Clearly, this turtle had a rough go of it simply getting up a hill and crossing the road.  He crushes and pushes aside obstacles, leaving a trail behind him where his shell has dragged.  Any plant matter that falls on him rolls off his shell and an ant that crawls into his shell is quickly crushed by the jolt of his limbs tucking into his dome-like covering for protection.  This turtle knows how to persevere.  He is not the most attractive creature; his shell is rough and dusty and his eyes are fierce.  However, his appearance is functional and he survives this trek.  The dramatization of his short walk emphasizes his human qualities, or perhaps emphasizes his animalistic qualities that we define as human.  In fact, I believe animals struggle for survival more than any human.  They have more limited resources, stricter diets and environmental restrictions, and no technology to aid them.
          Interestingly enough, Tommy Joad picks this turtle up.  The two are of entirely different species but seem to be kindred spirits.  Much like the land turtle smashed the ant in an effort of self-defense, Tommy committed homicide when he felt his own life being threatened.  Both parties struggles have made them pensive yet relentless, simply trying to reach a destination that the reader is still unsure of.  The preacher and Tommy both reflect upon turtles and their constant journeying to an unknown place.  Likewise, Tommy is journeying to California, but where exactly and with what obstacles and consequences are a mystery.  This turtle is not only a representative of Tommy, but of the human race in general;  All people face a struggle to survive and travel a road to a future that is ultimately undefined, they only do their best to get there.  Their appearance may not always be the finest, but functionality is all that is required.
         The inherent nature of survival that is harbored in all living things is also signified by the cat.  The cat is predatory towards the turtle, showing that animals must fear each other just as humans must.  The cat invades the turtle's shell, his home.  Similarly, other men knock down the home's of men such as Tom Joad, not because they want to but because they too must make a living.  The cat is also harassing the turtle because it is hungry and must be a predator to eat.  The men are also in search of food in this scene, and one of them has come upon it by means of hunting.
          These similarities propose that perhaps behavior that is so natural to uncomplicated beings, is not sinful in a more complex species such as humans it is just constructed as wrong-doing by over-analyzing.  The preacher mulls over his own sins and is incredibly contemplative.  He is slowly realizing that maybe these sins are not sins at all, but necessary actions that all humans carry out.  I think the behaviors of the animals  corroborate his thoughts.  Animals do not sin, they kill each other and have sex with each other (see story about bull and heifer) as a means of survival without repercussions, guilt, or shame.  If these two instincts are natural in humans as well, as Steinbeck's animal-human relation suggests, then they are not really sins but instinctive reactions.    Unfortunately humans are just given intelligence that allows for a thought process greater than what is needed for vitality.  It is when a person's back is up against the wall that their conscience is dulled and their behavior is most genuine.

Imagining *The Great Gatsby*

Daisy's green dock light

One of Gatsby's parties

The eyes of T.J. Eckleberg

East and West Egg

Gatsby's car

A 1920s Coupe (Tom's car)

Oheka Castle, Long Island, 1915, partial inspiration for Gatsby's Estate

Sand's Point Estate, Inspiration for the Buchanan Estate

*The Great Gastby* and Meanings Behind Names

           A brief study of name etymology reveals some interesting symbolic meanings behind each character of The Great Gatsby, which constructs and reinforces certain personality traits of the figures in Fitzgerald's novel.  
Tom 

"familiar shortening of masc. proper name Thomas, used by late14c. as a type of a nickname for a common man. Tom Walker , U.S. Southern colloquial for"the devil" is recorded from 1833."

          Tom Buchanan is a very abrasive and self-important figure in the novel.  However, the common nature of his name parallels his truly common personality.  He is arrogant and incredibly wealthy, capable of transporting a whole string of polo horses to his impressive estate at East Egg.  A rather unimpressive character belies all this wealth; Tom is crude, ignorant, and a bit racist (believing the "Nordic" race to be the dominant race that must suppress the rise of others).  All of these qualities, and the fact that he cheats on his wife, construct his character as rather brutish and beast-like.  He is simple and immoral man that hides behind the veil of wealth to attain approval, much like Gatsby hides behind his wealth (although for other reasons).

 

Daisy 

"O.E. dægesege,  from dæges eage  "day's eye," because the petals open at dawn and close at dusk. In M.L. it was solis oculus  "sun'seye." Pushing up daisies  "dead" is attested from1918, but variant with the same meaning go back to 1842."

          Daisy could be described as a whimsical character.  Her speech and the description of her appearance give the impression that she is a delicate sort of fairy that floats through life trying to ignore her troubles (such has her unfaithful husband).  Daisies are resilient and as the etymology states, represent the "day's eye".  She behaves in a lively manner and becomes giddy over small things, such as Gatsby's shirts and the clouds they gaze at together.  In the face of company she is typically all sunshine and rainboes.  However, she "turns a blind eye", so to speak, to the more reprehensible aspects of her life which could be symbolic of the daisy closing at dusk.  The saying "pushing up daisies" also provides some insight into Daisy and Gatsby's relationship.  "Pushing up daisies" signifies uncovering what is dead and buried.  Daisy and Gatsby's relationship was a memory, a part of the past; a memory which Gatsby is desperately trying to uncover throughout the text.  Often though, it is best to leave dead things buried, as Gatsby is sure to find out.

Jay 

"c.1300, Supposedly influenced by L. Gaius,  a common proper name. For other birdnames from proper names, cf. martin and parrot. Applied to theN.Amer. blue jay ( Cyanocitta cristata ) from 1709. Applied to humans in sense of "impertinent chatterer, flashy dresser" from 1620s."

          Jay (Gatsby), is derived from the common proper name Gaius, a common name for Roman emperors .  This name evokes greatness but is also described as slang, meaning "impertinent chatterer" and "flashy dresser".  These are two aspects that are apparent in Gatsby's personality.  He is frequently described wearing gold, silver, or pink shirts, and white suits.  These flashy colors compliment his flashy personality and speech.  He refers to men as "old sport" and has twice already, throughout the course of the novel, thrown two lavish parties.  This flashiness seems to be covering up a true identity.  Nobody knows who the real Jay Gatsby is, what he does, or where he comes from.  His background is a point of contention in the dialogue amongst his guests and in Nick's thoughts, which the reader is allowed access to through his narration.  Beneath the facade of this flashy materialism there dwells deeper story.

 Nicholas

"as a boy's name is pronounced NIK-oh-lus. It is of Greek origin, and the meaning of Nicholas is "people of victory". Biblical: one of seven "qualified men" in the first-century Christian congregation. "

          Within the first few pages of the story Nick, our narrator, establishes himself as a well-off character from an affluent family.  He is from a "people of victory" and of the breed of "qualified men".  The key for Nick is that he believes himself to be of a certain quality of man due to his blood-line that entitles him to success/victory.  He assumes that he will go into the bond business and do well because many do, and intends to stay on the East coast for quite a while.  The journey for Nick, and a large factor in what makes this story a bildungsroman, is based around his experience of working for victory and earning it himself.  He has to learn that he is not qualified on account of relations, but instead on account of himself.

Jordan

          I don't have much to say about the name Jordan apart from the relevance of it being a name that can be used for a male or female.  This corroborates Jordan's somewhat androgynous identity.  She has a boyish body, and is a professional athlete.  Her entire demeanor is somewhat gruff or at least ambivalent, in sharp contrast to the incredibly delicate and feminine Daisy.  These women are intriguing foils of each other; each emphasizes the extreme nature of the other's personality through the juxtaposition of their behavior.