Cynisism to Naivette

If you've read the previous entry then there is no doubt you'v come across my seemingly queer assertion "so naïve in their cynical approach" . I might not have decided to type this post explaining it save for the fact that my mother chose to contest my assertion, stating that it was an oxymoron. (I'll show her who's the moron....okay, bad pun....and her observation is correct if one only looks at the surface meaning of my phrase. However, I have a tendecy to waste my small allotment of free time pondering the deeper meaning of silly phrases that I usually make up to begin with.)

Well, I'm not one to state things that I can't support and I had, actually, been thinking about the naivette of cynism a lot lately (one of my friend's attitudes to life brought me to this, admittedly strange, conclusion).

My thinking is, and know that this will probably not come out in an verbally economic way, that many cynics are...caught up in the romantacism of being cynical. I mean, it was great with Eyore, but, come on.

Those who boast cynisim are so caught up looking for the evil in life, they miss the good. An example: Eyore was so caught up in what might happen if a butterfly was to land on his house, he never stopped to wonder at the beauty of that small insect, or why it was he was blessed by multiple visits by it.

Cynics seem to be in some sort of contest, who has the gloomier outlook on life, and they spend so much time proving to other people that they are cynical, that they miss the good (the good that they are steadily driving out of the victims of their complaints).

To be naive is to be gullible, ignorant, and forthright. Is not someone who ignores the good in favor of the "Almighty Bad" ignorant to God's grace around him? Is one who believes every bad tale about human kind, but is skeptical about the tales of heroes, thinking, well surely they held a personal stake in the matter, gullible? And forthright? Well, we've already established that those who are cynical are in a competition to see who can be the most cynical, therefore, they share every bleak and cheerless assertion they have with anyone unlucky enough to hear their assessments.

We've all been victim to the dreary ponderings of some cynical person standing next to us in line for some activity or another. We've heard them complain at amusement parks, bewail the hot sun on summer days, or the bracing winds of autumn. I enjoy those things, I thank God that I've been blessed with them.

The most tiring thing, I find, about these pessimists are their tendency to bemoan things that they are not willing to fix. It's great that they don't appreciate the state of children in Rwanda, but ask them to donate to a charity for those children. No. They are too cynical to believe the money will do any good. So then ask them to start their own charity, to speak out against the horrors going on inthe world. Once more, no! They "know" that one person couldn't possibly make a difference.

I don't complain when the problems in my life could have been fixed with more initiative on my part. And, I try not to complain, ever, because I realize how blessed I am to have what I have, while others have trouble making it through the day. One day, I plan on trying to help those people, in whatever why I deem most effective. But until I make that effort, I shy away from the horrors forced into my view by those to naive to look elswhere and realize the wonders around them, while I do look elsewhere.

We are only human, and yes, we can only do so much, but lets appreciate the gifts God has seen fit to bless us with and use them to better the world. And, if that's too much trouble for some, then I hope they will keep their noses out of the world's trouble and look to life's blessings instead. Everyone will be much happier that way.

Cutt-throat and "The Great Gatsby"

As you might have inferred from the title, I have been assigned a new paper from Mrs. "Cutt-throat", a name I have christened her with because of her intense grading methods.

This is the final draft of my Rogerian argument over Nick Carraway's character (it was once a draft, but I've finished it so...).

Have fun ^^

An Apparent Machiavelli

In his tragedy Othello, William Shakespeare forewarns those of jealous temperament “O, beware, my lord, of jealousy! It is the green-eyed monster, which doth mock the meat it feeds on". That this line can be used in many contexts is doubtless, but for my own purposes, I turn it to the critics of The Great Gatsby and all who would renounce the character of Nick Carraway with cynical assertions to his cowardice and terrible dishonesty. To explore the complexity of Nick’s character is to watch the moral growth of a young character as his views upon the world evolve into fantastic, and rather painfully honest, assessments. Exploring Nick’s growth will hopefully impart to those, so naive in their cynical approach to The Great Gatsby, the startling revelation that people can be honest in their approach to delicate topics, such as Nick does for said topics exemplified in Fitzgerald’s novel.

Those critics who operate under the afore-mentioned, emerald-eyed social niche will consider Nick a detestable character due to the “dishonesty beyond redemption” and moral cowardice he demonstrates throughout the novel. Nick was obviously a modern day Machiavelli: his apparent surreptitious reasons in refusing to accept Gatsby’s questionable job proposal, his secrecy concerning his friend Gatsby and second cousin Daisy’s affair from the scornful eyes of the public, all the while continuing a friendly acquaintance with the victimized husband, are all obvious ploys for social power. What’s more; Nick, this craven, grants reprieve to the bold and egotistical, yet ethically juvenile, Tom from a justifiable, stern, and boldly contemptuous lecture.

Nick’s faults are obvious, his failures apparent. He even fails to find his friend, Gatsby, an honorable group of people willing to attend his funeral. How could such a poor and amoral man ever come into the confidence of so many happy, wealthy people such as Daisy, Jordan, Tom and Gatsby? Why was he not cast down sooner from their amity? Nick’s actions could effortlessly be interpreted as conceited attempts to grasp the ephemeral prominence promised by wealth. However, I do not view Nick’s actions as selfish and I believe to do so would be to deny the book, The Great Gatsby, its charm. Tis natural to envy the positive traits of others, in this case, Nick’s honest, reliability, or to view those traits with suspicion born from pessimism; to do so, however, detracts from Fitzgerald’s story. How can we appreciate the poetic tragedy of The Great Gatsby when our narrator is a piebald composed of varying shades of deceit, corruption, and fecklessness? The answer to that, austere though it may be, is that you can’t.

Nick was, arguably, Fitzgerald’s most crucial character; throughout the novel Fitzgerald reminds his audience, through Nick, that our narrator is free of that common human vice: bias judgment. At the beginning of the novel, Nick divulges his habit of ambivalence, stating, through the instructions of his father, he’s “inclined to reserve all judgments” (page 5 paragraph 1). Nick starts the novel with a straightforward assertion as to his character, tempering it only with the understandable admission that even this tolerance for others has its limits. Contrary to what many would assume, this admission strengthens Nick’s reliability because it is a statement of humility, not one of moral vulnerability. This continued humility and honesty is seen often throughout the book, especially in his relationship with Jordan. From the beginning of their relationship, Nick acknowledges the fact he doesn’t consider the continually superficial and jaunty Jordan as a serious romantic interest. At the height of their relationship, Nick still wont devote himself entirely to Jordan because of his peripheral awareness of the girl left back home to whom he’s been “writing once a week and signing the letters “Love, Nick,”” (page 64, continued paragraph). His honesty in dealing with all people, despite his own feelings, is a poignant reminder of the respectability Nick possess.

The most potent of reminders for Nick’s character is his final meeting with Tom Buchanan for it is then that Nick makes his significant revelation that the inspiring rich are little more than children. Nick’s refusal to criticize Tom and Daisy’s actions stem, not from cowardice, but from a deep awareness that this indulgent group were ignorant to the consequences, to the absolute havoc, that ensued following their moral vacations. “I shook hands with him” Nick states, “it seemed silly not to, for I felt suddenly as though I were talking to a child” (page 188 paragraph 1). A child indeed, one who is pampered and oblivious to his own selfish faults, that is an excellent way to describe the Buchanans whose money has secluded them from social responsibility.

The Great Gatsby depicts an intimate and culturally relevant story that suggests an enduring message, a message that is made all the more relevant to contemporary society due to the consistency of the moral character, Nick. To see the story in black and white would be pure fallacy and Nick extinguishes that prosaic theory of dual pigmentation with his sangfroid disposition. His honesty transforms this perverse tragedy into a rich text, something his critics will surely have neglected to realize due of their fascination with continued, cynical observations.