In Fitzgerald’s novel, ‘The Great Gatsby’ (1925), we see materialism and consumerism as the true downfall of Gatsby, Myrtle and George- they pursued their dreams of wealth, only to have them stripped from them, ironically enough, by the wealthy.
There is a sense of absence to the aforementioned wealthy people in the novel, which is most apparent in Tom and Daisy.
You should spend 1 hour and 30-45 minutes on the Gatsby and Larkin question, which is 30 marks (the biggest question).
It is Section B of Edexcel's English Language and Literature A Level Paper 2.
Fitzgerald may be criticising the inert and thoughtless nature of old money, especially when we see the vitality of Gatsby being so callously cut short.
Larkin illustrates a similar state of affairs in 1950s and 60s Britain; materialism and consumerism has made people blind to reality.However, an alternate reading of power within these two works is the durability and impact of love and dreams.Although power destroys Gatsby, the power of his love and dreams is still admirable to Nick.It is also fundamental to note that both authors are male, so we may expect their portrayal of women to be subject to the male gaze, consciously or not.Introduction Example Although writing in significantly different eras, there is a striking similarity between Fitzgerald and Larkin’s portrayal of power.As a result, we could argue that Fitzgerald presents this imbalance of power in order to criticise the sexism that was typical of 1920s America.Similarly, Larkin uses his poetry collection ‘The Whitsun Weddings’ (1964) to illustrate male authority, perhaps influenced by his father’s controlling relationships with his mother.It’s also crucial to know how you can gain marks for any work you do on the text, whether it’s exam practice or a coursework task.Make sure you understand the Assessment Objectives for your task, and if possible, have a look at a sample essay that meets the criteria.He never fought in the war due to his bad eyesight, and he never produced children, so he may be viewed as a subversion of the masculine stereotype, especially given his rejection of the philistine and sometimes vulgar nature associated with men in the 1950s and 60s.However, he also considers the concept of legacy; despite being very famous for his poetry, he considered himself not having a legacy as he had no children (the ultimate show of masculinity).