Jacques Lacan suggests, "I love you, but because I love in you something more... I
mutilate you" — implying that obsessive love stems from a desire for an
unattainable object of fantasy. In light of this, compare the portrayal of obsessive
love in Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby and Brontë’s Wuthering Heights, exploring
how the characters' downfalls reflect unresolved inner desires. Consider how
wider critical readings inform your interpretation.
Lacan’s assertion that love and mutilation are inherently connected directly contrasts
the prevailing notion that love signifies the apotheosis of a romantic ideal.
Consequently, a fragmentation between the true and idealised nature of love emerges.
This manifests in Lacan’s theorised ‘Objet Petit a’ where the transformation of love is
inevitable: an obsession for an unattainable object of desire. Wilde’s phenomenon of
the ‘two tragedies in life: not getting what one wants and getting it’ parallels this idea of
obsession where the compulsion to achieve supersedes one’s concept of reality. As
such, Fitzgerald subtly characterises Gatsby as a predator, transfixed on attaining his
object of fantasy at his expense; a motive mirrored in Heathcliff’s powerful
proclamation that Catherine is his ‘soul’. By examining these texts, it would be possible
to explore the extent to which Gatsby and Heathcliff’s unresolved inner desires lead to
obsessive love and how far cultural and psychoanalytical influences shape the authors’
portrayal of the fixation on unattainable love.
In both 'The Great Gatsby’ and ‘Wuthering Heights’, the existence of social stratification
is a crucial aspect in the emergence of obsessive love. For Gatsby, this emanates from
his desire to detach from his lower economic status- an action theorised in Roger’s
‘Congruence’. The proposition that ‘discrepancies between the actual self and ideal
self lead to negative self-perception' is reflected in Gatsby’s psyche where his
behaviour is dependent on disguising his identity. This is apparent in the stark
distinction between the ‘unsuccessful farm boy’ James Gatz and the affluent Jay
Gatsby, demonstrating that Gatsby's unresolved inner desire is centred on surpassing
his self-curated expectations. Perhaps the inability to differentiate between his reality
and imagination is caused by societal idealisation of the ‘American Dream’ in 1920s
America where ‘he invented just a sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen-year-old would
be likely to...’. Consequently, Fitzgerald’s critique of the American dream is apparent,
deconstructing the myth of purity associated with it. Instead, exposing how unprivileged
individuals like Gatz were offered an ultimatum: reinvention or accept social alienation.
As Silvija notes, ‘he (Gatsby) despised his life there... He was a dreamer, a believer in
the purity of the American dream’. This indicates that Gatz’s inability to accept his
reality as a working-class boy in Post-war America and eventual manipulation of a
facade of power reflect that his isolation from his identity was arguably inevitable.
Fitzgerald’s own disillusionment after WW1 is illustrated here, as Gatsby becomes a
, juxtaposition to Fitzgerald’s scepticism of the American dream. His willingness to
succumb to societal expectation contrasts with Fitzgerald's own experience of being a
part of Stein’s ‘lost generation’. Despite their similarity in that they have both been
ostracised by society, Gatsby desperately attempts to conform as 'his imagination had
never really accepted...his unsuccessful parents...’ whilst Fitzgerald exposes the
sanctimonious nature of those who advocate for the American dream.
This contrast is revealed through Gatsby's ‘dream seeming so close that he could
hardly fail to grasp it’ yet ‘he did not know it was already behind him'. Fitzgerald
employs irony through the juxtaposition of ‘close’ and ‘behind’ to highlight the
difference between self-awareness and self-creation. Whilst Gatsby’s dream appears
‘close’ to him, achieved through reinvention of self, Fitzgerald’s own inability to escape
his ‘midwestern class background’ offers him a perhaps educated view on how the
American dream is only suitable for ‘selected’ individuals. Individuals like Gatsby must
accept that self-creation does not guarantee acceptance from upper classes,
emphasised through his eventual downfall. Hence, Gatsby's segregation from his social
class may explain his descent into obsessive love because Daisy was a paradigm of
aristocracy to him. She represented the ideal life that he was striving to attain,
consequently, attaining her fulfils his achievement of prestige.
Indeed, as suggested by Lacan, the threshold between love and mutilation is blurred
whereby Gatsby’s egocentric fuelled obsession with Daisy perhaps metaphorically
mutilates the haven she has established for herself. Wang’s expression that ‘Gatsby
regards Daisy as the symbol and means of realizing his dream’ supports this view by
offering a feminist critique of his actions. Perhaps his indifference in dismantling the
established nature of Daisy’s life centres on his obsession with escaping his social
class, rather than an obsession with her as an ‘object'. Thus, his downfall is epitomised
by his obsession in acclaiming Daisy, to challenge social inequality.
Despite Brontë’s Yorkshire setting differing from Fitzgerald’s 1920s America, she
similarly depicts the significance of social class and racial prejudice in exacerbating
Heathcliff’s maltreatment and driving his subsequent fixation on obsessive love. Zhou’s
postcolonial lens contends that ‘He (Heathcliff) is full of negative intentions and
hostility, because he becomes the capitalist landowner who exploited others that he
hated and resented back then’. This suggests that the continual ‘othering’ of Heathcliff
as a ‘dark skinned gipsy’ by the contrasting ‘fair skinned’ characters depict his
compulsion to reject his social class. His outsider status as a working-class boy in a
pre-Victorian era –where socio-economic class was emphasised- led to his depiction
as a servant. This is evident in Heathcliff's declaration: ‘"I shall be as dirty...and I like to
be dirty, and I will be dirty". Here, the repetitive adjective ‘dirty’ reiterates how
Heathcliff has accepted the negative stereotype that he has grown accustomed to,
living with the Earnshaws.
mutilate you" — implying that obsessive love stems from a desire for an
unattainable object of fantasy. In light of this, compare the portrayal of obsessive
love in Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby and Brontë’s Wuthering Heights, exploring
how the characters' downfalls reflect unresolved inner desires. Consider how
wider critical readings inform your interpretation.
Lacan’s assertion that love and mutilation are inherently connected directly contrasts
the prevailing notion that love signifies the apotheosis of a romantic ideal.
Consequently, a fragmentation between the true and idealised nature of love emerges.
This manifests in Lacan’s theorised ‘Objet Petit a’ where the transformation of love is
inevitable: an obsession for an unattainable object of desire. Wilde’s phenomenon of
the ‘two tragedies in life: not getting what one wants and getting it’ parallels this idea of
obsession where the compulsion to achieve supersedes one’s concept of reality. As
such, Fitzgerald subtly characterises Gatsby as a predator, transfixed on attaining his
object of fantasy at his expense; a motive mirrored in Heathcliff’s powerful
proclamation that Catherine is his ‘soul’. By examining these texts, it would be possible
to explore the extent to which Gatsby and Heathcliff’s unresolved inner desires lead to
obsessive love and how far cultural and psychoanalytical influences shape the authors’
portrayal of the fixation on unattainable love.
In both 'The Great Gatsby’ and ‘Wuthering Heights’, the existence of social stratification
is a crucial aspect in the emergence of obsessive love. For Gatsby, this emanates from
his desire to detach from his lower economic status- an action theorised in Roger’s
‘Congruence’. The proposition that ‘discrepancies between the actual self and ideal
self lead to negative self-perception' is reflected in Gatsby’s psyche where his
behaviour is dependent on disguising his identity. This is apparent in the stark
distinction between the ‘unsuccessful farm boy’ James Gatz and the affluent Jay
Gatsby, demonstrating that Gatsby's unresolved inner desire is centred on surpassing
his self-curated expectations. Perhaps the inability to differentiate between his reality
and imagination is caused by societal idealisation of the ‘American Dream’ in 1920s
America where ‘he invented just a sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen-year-old would
be likely to...’. Consequently, Fitzgerald’s critique of the American dream is apparent,
deconstructing the myth of purity associated with it. Instead, exposing how unprivileged
individuals like Gatz were offered an ultimatum: reinvention or accept social alienation.
As Silvija notes, ‘he (Gatsby) despised his life there... He was a dreamer, a believer in
the purity of the American dream’. This indicates that Gatz’s inability to accept his
reality as a working-class boy in Post-war America and eventual manipulation of a
facade of power reflect that his isolation from his identity was arguably inevitable.
Fitzgerald’s own disillusionment after WW1 is illustrated here, as Gatsby becomes a
, juxtaposition to Fitzgerald’s scepticism of the American dream. His willingness to
succumb to societal expectation contrasts with Fitzgerald's own experience of being a
part of Stein’s ‘lost generation’. Despite their similarity in that they have both been
ostracised by society, Gatsby desperately attempts to conform as 'his imagination had
never really accepted...his unsuccessful parents...’ whilst Fitzgerald exposes the
sanctimonious nature of those who advocate for the American dream.
This contrast is revealed through Gatsby's ‘dream seeming so close that he could
hardly fail to grasp it’ yet ‘he did not know it was already behind him'. Fitzgerald
employs irony through the juxtaposition of ‘close’ and ‘behind’ to highlight the
difference between self-awareness and self-creation. Whilst Gatsby’s dream appears
‘close’ to him, achieved through reinvention of self, Fitzgerald’s own inability to escape
his ‘midwestern class background’ offers him a perhaps educated view on how the
American dream is only suitable for ‘selected’ individuals. Individuals like Gatsby must
accept that self-creation does not guarantee acceptance from upper classes,
emphasised through his eventual downfall. Hence, Gatsby's segregation from his social
class may explain his descent into obsessive love because Daisy was a paradigm of
aristocracy to him. She represented the ideal life that he was striving to attain,
consequently, attaining her fulfils his achievement of prestige.
Indeed, as suggested by Lacan, the threshold between love and mutilation is blurred
whereby Gatsby’s egocentric fuelled obsession with Daisy perhaps metaphorically
mutilates the haven she has established for herself. Wang’s expression that ‘Gatsby
regards Daisy as the symbol and means of realizing his dream’ supports this view by
offering a feminist critique of his actions. Perhaps his indifference in dismantling the
established nature of Daisy’s life centres on his obsession with escaping his social
class, rather than an obsession with her as an ‘object'. Thus, his downfall is epitomised
by his obsession in acclaiming Daisy, to challenge social inequality.
Despite Brontë’s Yorkshire setting differing from Fitzgerald’s 1920s America, she
similarly depicts the significance of social class and racial prejudice in exacerbating
Heathcliff’s maltreatment and driving his subsequent fixation on obsessive love. Zhou’s
postcolonial lens contends that ‘He (Heathcliff) is full of negative intentions and
hostility, because he becomes the capitalist landowner who exploited others that he
hated and resented back then’. This suggests that the continual ‘othering’ of Heathcliff
as a ‘dark skinned gipsy’ by the contrasting ‘fair skinned’ characters depict his
compulsion to reject his social class. His outsider status as a working-class boy in a
pre-Victorian era –where socio-economic class was emphasised- led to his depiction
as a servant. This is evident in Heathcliff's declaration: ‘"I shall be as dirty...and I like to
be dirty, and I will be dirty". Here, the repetitive adjective ‘dirty’ reiterates how
Heathcliff has accepted the negative stereotype that he has grown accustomed to,
living with the Earnshaws.
