Free sample - The US Government Should Not be Funding Arts.. translation missing

The US Government Should Not be Funding Arts.. The US Government Should Not be Funding Arts.Introduction First, what does "funding" refer to? Funding can be either direct or indirect. The US government was funding arts in this country before 1965 but that it took in-direct forms, including land grants, tax exemptions to educational and cultural institutions such as museums, and tax advantages for private donations of art to the public. This paper delves more onto direct state funding of the arts. The US arts system has no single control but instead, has a variety of public subsidies composing of roughly 13% of the nation’s total investment in nonprofit arts groups. The National Endowment for the Arts-NEA is the largest single funder of the arts across America, but the majority of direct public funding still flows from a combination of other federal, state, regional and local agencies. NEA in 2009 had a budget of US$155 million.   Even before the creation of the NEA in 1965, the issue of government in funding of the arts had been a contested one. Some justifications for governme nt arts funding are found, but it is noted that in embracing these justifications inappropriate consequences may be occur. Thus, in this paper it is urged that we refrain from government funding of the arts because the effects of such funding, would be deleterious to the art world. Much government funding is aimed at what might be thought of as the preservation of culture. It supports museums and repertory companies and is intent on keeping our culture intact. Other objectives of government funding target community art centers, regional theaters, and school programs. And funding may also be directed to professional artists for the purpose of enabling them to produce new works of art.    Whereas funding of museums looks to the past of our culture, funding professional artists is futuristic.   The preservation of culture, of course, is involved with education, which falls under the jurisdiction of the state . More to that, though not clearly, art preservation keeps us aware of who we have been, which informs our practical decisions about who we shall become. Support for the production of modern day art can also be defended as educational but, bluntly, contemporary art is not our heritage yet; nor is it clear how much of it will be or how far it will stand time.   If the aesthetic value of contemporary art would be used to justify prospective arts funding, it also will have unfortunate consequence in that it only warrants the funding of certain kinds of art, the art of the beautiful, the sublime, and that expressive of psychically balancing qualities. If no further justification can be found, the ill consequence of this is that the state can only fund a certain typ e of art. Artists pursuing certain non aesthetic aims cannot be funded by the state. If the government places large investments behind one type of art, the evolution of the art world will undoubtedly be affect ed. Whole avenues of artistic development will appear less viable than the production of aesthetic art. And from the contemporary art world's point of view, this kind of arts funding might be regarded as having a regressive effect overall.    Another justification used by proponents of arts funding is that it may function as an economic stimulant, promoting prosperity by, for example, attracting tourists. As far as this funding can be pegged to the state of the economy, it would appear to be a legitimate course of action, since functioning of economy is related to the state responsibilities. It is often difficult to imagine the way in which grants to individual artists for new works as opposed to city art centers can spur economic growth. An economic growth argument identifies the value of arts funding not with aesthetic or artistic value, but as an economic instrument. But despite this, the argument seems acceptable, although it can only be mobilized under certain constraints. Where   arts funding is employed to stimulate tourism or some other form of economic activity in a given area, the state must be convinced that there is no alternative form of intervention of comparable cost would yield greater prosperity in that area. More to that, where national rather than local economy is at issue, the state must supply some rationale why it is undertaking to stimulate tourism in one geographical region rather than another.      Another justification put forward is connecting arts funding to   employment. If state funding is not forthcoming, then many artists will be unemployed. Unemployment is a genuine matter of concern to the state. Massive unemployment is one of the great tragedies of our society, and we must demand that the state do something about it. Artists do not constitute a group that is comparable to unemployed youth. Justice and equal opportunity do not seem to bear on the issue of artistic unemployment. For instance, I may not be able to support my family as an unemployed poet; but that does not mean that I can't do it in another way, say, as a cook or a copywriter. It does not fall under the state's responsibilities in regard to the unemployed extend to guaranteeing that everyone have the job he or she most desires. The case of artistic unemployment involves people not able to pursue the line of work they most like, while youth unemployment at large involves people excluded from the work force altogether. Fairness can be used to ground government arts support. If a given government subsidizes the building of sports arenas, then, in all fairness, arts production should also be supported. If the government facilitates the pursuits of sports fans, then it should, as a matter of treating people equally, also facilitate the pursuits of arts fans, perhaps by means of supporting the creation of new art. But what, in such a context, justifies the subsidizing of sports? If nothing does, then perhaps what is required is that neither sports nor the arts be subsidized. Of course, a subsidy for a sport might be defended on the grounds that it stimulates the economy of an area; but then arts funding can, in principle, be similarly defended. Again, it does seem correct to say that if a majority, call them sports fans, demand sports funding in the face of opposition by a minority, call them arts lovers, then fairness urges that the leisure activity of the latter group also be supported, though perhap s not to the same extent. The deeper question, however, is whether any leisure activity should be supported. The advancement of the leisure professions may just not be an area the state should enter at all.    One of the earliest arguments in favor of government support of the arts is that the arts perform a moral function.   If art can function as a means of improving morality, then the state is justified in supporting it. Some art enables us to see the world from a different perspective, thus not only promoting the acquisition of a formal requirement of morality, but also enabling us to understand situations of different classes, races, creeds, and genders. Art, then, can foster greater tolerance within society and thereby bolster the moral order. If we argue from these grounds then state funding on moralizing grounds will be justified ,but   then only to that art which will increase moral sympathies. This will require some serious   research into the moral importance of different kinds of art. Art that afford no moral uplift cannot be funded. This raises problems like those encountered in an earlier discussion of the aesthetics value. If the state is funding only certain kinds of art and it enters the art world, putting its resources behind only moralizing kinds of art, then there is a danger that the development of the art world will be skewed in a certain direction. This violates our understanding   that   art should be pluralist and   independent of considerations of social utility.    Public arts funding primarily benefits the already advantaged. An artist is a person engaged in one or more of any of a broad spectrum of activities   related to creating art, practicing the arts and/or demonstrating an art(Wikipedia). Artist should be able to use their rare skills to improve their well being.    There is also an argument that public funding is necessary to promote innovation and dialogue among diverse points of view, so that groups that want to use the fine arts to challenge the status quo and advocate their unpopular world views and lifestyles can have a forum. However, while the common good requires tolerating the expression of unpopular points of view, the fact that most people do not share them suggests that the common good may not be served by supporting their expression. Even if it is, the government has no more business providing subsidies for such purposes. Indeed, many unpopular world views and lifestyles are at odds with traditional theism, and subsidizing them while not subsidizing theism would give the former an unfair advantage. People who think the expression of an unpopular viewpoint desirable should be fund it themselves just as religious believers should support their churches and missionary activities. The argument that public funding is necessary because some people have great and rare gifts that, due to lack of a market, otherwise will be lost. That might be true but the common good of political society is limited. It is not the proper role of the U.S. government to pursue all human goods in every possible way, and therefore not its business to subsidize every gift that otherwise will be fruitless. Some argue that subsidizing what initially appeals only to a few are necessary to foster a wide variety of creative initiatives that will elevate popular taste and tomorrow serve the multitude. Whether the funded work elevates anyone’s taste is arguable, but even supposing it does, can this indirect contribution to the common good justify the subsidy? Moreover, while some creative efforts that initially appeal to few eventually serve the masses, most do not, and it is hardly possible to show that public funding of some portion of art work is necessary for future cultural development. There are other needs calling for public funding, and some, plainly more pressing than this- for example, better basic education for the very poor- will surely put it to fruitful uses. One cannot justify spending for a dim and uncertain result when there are many urgent and promising alternatives. A recent argument draws a distinction between to view points of culture, Culture provides the particular paintings, performances, and novels, designs, sports and thrillers that we value and take delight in; but it also provides the structural frame that makes aesthetic values of that sort possible and makes them values for us. This structural frame includes a wealth of associations, references, images, and contrasts, which, like language, supply us with the tools with which we forge and map our common life. It insists that it is better for people to have a complex and multifarious cultural framework and that we owe future generations at least as rich a cultural framework as the one we inherited. Both these values can be achieved by promoting the creation of innovative art. Government support in this area is necessary because it "helps protect the fragile structure of our culture. This argument to endorse indirect rather than direct arts support by the government. But he does countena nce situations in which government support could be direct. At least two problems, however, beset this approach. First, there is the assumption that the structure of culture is fragile. When we look at the structure of culture, we note that it comprises many ingredients beside art-social dances, children's games, fashion, sports, religion, indeed the whole gamut of our symbolizing activities. These images become part and parcel of our ways of thinking; they are the very weave of our common culture. But it seems dubious to consider them to be fit beneficiaries of public funding. Yet if art deserves public funding because of its contribution to our cultural framework, so does anything else that similarly contributes, including, potentially, every sort of symbolizing activity, and notably some outlandish ones: hoopla-hoops, comic books, Billy Graham, the Watergate break-in, and so on. Government funding of anything involves government control. Proponents of arts funding are unaware of this peril when they praise the role of the national endowments as an seal of approval on artists and arts groups. This could lead to politicization of arts. Another claim used to justify public funding of arts is equal arts participation.   Participation in arts can not only be attributed to state funding and subsidy but may also be attributed to two other possible factors, that is; Groups that are inclined to participate even without state funding especially those with high income and highly educated may be attending in higher numbers; or, groups that formerly attended in lower rates for example, low income and education and certain ethnic groups may also be participating more given the rise in public support. Accordingly, If state art support truly makes the arts more available and accessible, then   it would be expected that an even more evenly distributed scenario of participation in states that provide more funding would be witnessed. Unequal participation in arts appears on several levels; in education, income, race, and geographic location. People will always participate in the arts at unequal levels, and statistical evidence confirms that participation in arts differs by various populace groups. Although income alone may not accurately predict participation at the individual level, a more complete picture is seen when economic   theory of choice is combined with other social and individual background characteristics that help determine preferences such as education level, racial alignment, income, and location. Therefore, participation inequalities occur not only because of variations of individual tastes, but also because of other social and cultural influences on the choice and ability to participate in arts.   The cultural equity argument for government support, depends on the problem of unequal access. The depends on the fact that factors beyond individuals’ immediate control prevent them from taking part in opportunities availed by participation in arts. Equal access can be categorized into three concepts: equality of opportunity, rights, opportunity, and of participation. Use of state funding to correct for unequal access is a form of redistribution. Redistribution through arts funding is skewed, since it favors those to whom art and the aesthetic are more important over those to whom it is less important. So, the best form of redistribution of state resources would be direct transfers to the less fortunate. Proponents of state funding will also argue that by funding arts the state is safeguarding the welfare of the citizens. But welfare, as it applies to as a state role, refers to assistance to individuals in need of the basic commodities that comprise a living. Is it practical to suppose that arts funding provides some such a commodity?   An analogy would be to say that someone needs Y is to say that they lack it, they will suffer injury, sickness, madness, hunger, or avoidable death. Does the production of contemporary artworks assist individuals in needful situations such as these? The answer is no. Some proponents of public funding will attempt to connect state arts support to the state's welfare function by   introducing a concept of aesthetic welfare. Aesthetic welfare is defined as all the aesthetic levels of the experience of members of the society at a given time. It is then suggested that there is a prima facie government duty to preserve the aesthetic wealth of society wh ere that wealth-pictures, plays, and so forth-is what gives rise to aesthetic welfare. It is not certain, however, that this particular notion of aesthetic welfare helps the case for prospective arts funding since it may be that, if there were such a prima facie duty, retrospective arts funding might suffice to discharge it. Also, one must question whether the connection between "aesthetic welfare" and the concept of welfare relevant to government activity is really unequivocal. First, "aesthetic welfare" doesn't correlate with de-finable needs, especially basic needs; nor does being below the poverty line imply being aesthetically disadvantaged. And clearly promoting individuals' aesthetic welfare will not raise them over the poverty line. More-over, the state's welfare responsibility under this conception of aesthetic welfare doesn't seem to be directly connected to individuals but is a matter of ensuring that there will be a large number of aesthetic objects around so that people can have aesthetic experiences if they want them. The state is to ensure the permanent possibility of high levels of what is called aesthetic welfare but might better be called aesthetic well-being. This well-being is to be secured for society at large, construed additively, whereas the state's welfare responsibilities are discharged toward particular per-sons, viz., anyone in need. Thus the notion of aesthetic welfare" appears not to refer to welfare of the kind that defines the state's proper domain of activity; it is merely a homonymous term that, though sounding like the concept employed in the discussion of the state's welfare responsibilities, is actually quite separate. Lastly, the idea that art will disappear if the government does not support it, and if the state does not fund new art, no one else will. Of course, this is a false claim, and a dubious one at that. The arts flourished in democratic societies before the coming of direct public funding; there is no reason to suppose that they will disappear without the direct government funding of new arts. Where people are interested in art, there will still be an audience to support new work. Were there no audience whatsoever, it would be difficult to determine on what basis the government would justify funding new art. SUMMARY In conclusion, there do appear to be some theoretical justifications for possible government funding of art. The two important   justifications seem to be those concerning the aesthetic environment and the moralizing effects of the arts.   For they endorse the funding of only certain types of art. Government support for only certain types of art may indeed disturb the structure of artistic production and perhaps destroy the art world as we know it.

Contrast Essay for The Great Gatsby

How to Write a Compare/Contrast Essay for The Great Gatsby SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips A very common essay prompt/discussion topic for The Great Gatsby is to have you compare and contrast a pair of characters in Gatsby. Why do teachers love these prompts so much? These compare/contrast essays are an opportunity for you to tie the character similarities and differences to larger observations about society and class, the American Dream, or identity in the novel. They also allow you to practice standard English class skills: close reading, using lines from the text as evidence, and taking a stance and presenting a supporting argument in an essay. We’ll go over some basic dos and don’ts for writing compare/contrast essays before diving into some analysis of the most asked-about character pairings. Keep reading if you have a Compare/Contrast assignment on the horizon! Article Roadmap The do's of acompare and contrast essay The don'ts of a compare contrast essay Why some characters are paired for comparison more often than others Analysis of and essay topic ideas for the most common character pairs: Nick and Gatsby Tom and George Tom and Gatsby Daisy and Jordan Daisy and Myrtle What to Do in a Compare/Contrast Essay Like anything you write for English class, your essay should be clearly organized, with a thesis statement (a one-sentence summary of your argument), and topic sentences for each body paragraph. And you should definitely have an overall argument! The point of the compare/contrast essay isn’t for you to just list the differences and similarities between two characters, you need to take those observations and make a larger argument about the novel as a whole. That larger argument allows you to practice writing an essay that contains an argument, which is a skill that nearly all English teachers are focused on building. To take a quick example, don’t just list the differences between Tom Buchanan and Jay Gatsby. Instead, make an argument like, â€Å"Fitzgerald’s portrayal of wealthy New York society through Jay Gatsby and Tom Buchanan allows him to critique both old money and the newly rich, while reserving his most pointed critiques for the old money crowd.† (Obviously, that’s just one example, and there are dozens of potential arguments you could make while comparing and contrasting characters in Gatsby!) Make sure to address your larger argument in each body paragraph as you draw out the similarities and differences between the two characters. Don’t get caught in the weeds as you tease out the many differences and similarities in each character pair. Always link back to the bigger picture. Finally, analyze each quote you use – in other words, don’t stick a quote in your essay and do nothing with it. Make sure to explain how and why the quote demonstrates a key similarity or difference, and what that means for your bigger argument. What to Avoid in a Compare/Contrast Essay Don’t just list differences and similarities without an overarching argument. Although you can definitely start brainstorming by making a list of similarities and differences, just presenting that list in essay form won’t get you a good grade, since you need to go deeper and explain what the similarities/differences suggest about the novel as a whole. And, on the other side, don’t make big claims without some evidence from the text to back them up. For example, don’t say â€Å"Tom is selfish while Gatsby cares about others.† Prove those two separate claims (Tom is selfish† and â€Å"Gatsby cares about others†) with relevant lines from the book. (And if you’re having a hard time locating good quotes, find a digital version of Gatsby you can search using the CTRL-F function. It’s a lifesaver when gathering relevant quotes for an essay!) The garden gnome agrees - our essay tips have helped him out more than you'll ever know. Why Are These Characters Paired Most Often? We will tackle these major pairings in the next sections of this article: Nick Carraway and Jay Gatsby Tom Buchanan and Jay Gatsby Tom Buchanan and George Wilson Daisy Buchanan and Jordan Baker Daisy Buchanan and Myrtle Wilson Before we dig into the analysis, you might be wondering: â€Å"why are we only comparing characters of the same gender?† or maybe â€Å"why not other pairings? Why not Jordan and Myrtle, or Nick and Tom?† We are focusing on these specific pairings because they are by far the most commonly asked about pairs in essay prompts and discussion topics for The Great Gatsby. And we want this guide, first and foremost, to be helpful to students as you work on assignments involving Gatsby! Furthermore, these pairings help teachers get you to explore some of the novel’s larger themes. For example, comparing Daisy/ Myrtle or Tom/George can help you explore the differences between the wealthy and the working class.Comparing Daisy/Myrtle or Daisy/Jordan can help you explore the changing status of women during the 1920s. Comparing Tom and Gatsby can get at the old money/new money divide. Finally, differences betweenNick and Gatsby raisesome of the novel’s larger questions about the American Dream, repeating the past, and identity. In short, these pairings have become common because they each allow fairly easy access to one of the novel’s larger issues. That’s not to say you couldn’t also explore some of those themes by comparing, say, Jordan and George, or Daisy and Gatsby, but cross-gender compare/contrast essays can be challenging because the status of women and men is so different in the novel. If you are interested in seeing how a particular male and female character are paired, you may be better off studying them through the lens of love, desire, and relationships in the novel, or through the way they relate to one of the novel's symbols or motifs. With those thoughts in mind, let's jump into the top 5 pairings! For each pairing, we will suggest a few possible larger arguments you can either build from or disagree with, but these are far from comprehensive! You should add to our analysis of the characters and come up with an argument you’re excited about. Quick Note on Our Citations Our citation format in this guide is (chapter.paragraph). We're using this system since there are many editions of Gatsby, so using page numbers would only work for students with our copy of the book. To find a quotation we cite via chapter and paragraph in your book, you can either eyeball it (Paragraph 1-50: beginning of chapter; 50-100: middle of chapter; 100-on: end of chapter), or use the search function if you're using an online or eReader version of the text. Nick Carraway and Jay Gatsby Although Jay Gatsby and Nick Carraway varyboth in outlook and temperament, they are also alike ininteresting ways. Despite somewhat similardesires, attitudes, and social positions, Nick and Gatsby make very different choices during the novel. Love and Romance.Nick and Gatsbyboth want womenthat are out of their reach, although in different degrees. Daisy is miles above Gatsby in terms of social class. Jordan and Nick are of the same social status, but Jordan doesn't seem free to make her own decisions since an aunt controls her financial life.There is a significant passion gap between Gatsby and Nick as well. Gatsby obsesses over Daisy- he has thought of nothing else for five years, going as far as to buy a house across the bay from her just in case she notices. Nick, meanwhile, is attracted to Jordan's cool and self-sufficient demeanor, but he is clearly not in love with her, as he himself notes ("I wasn't actually in love, but I felt a sort of tender curiosity" (3.159)). Approach to Women.Both men are not particularly interested in the inner lives of the women they want to be with. Gatsby is devastated when Daisy doesn't want to renounce her relationship with Tom completely. Similarly, Nick cavalierly discounts Jordan's penchant to lie, cheat, and generally be cynically uninterested in other people, and then is deeply disappointed when she acts this way after Myrtle's death. Class and Social Standing.Although bothGatsby and Nick are outsiders to the wealthy communities of East and West Egg, Nick is a much more in-between character socially than Gatsby. Nick is familiar with the ways of the old money crowd because of his own family's privilege and the fact that he is related to Daisy. Gatsby isnot only self-made, but is a criminal whois desperate to pass as part of the old money elite without knowing its customs or rules of behavior.What isolates Nickfrom East Egg life is his Midwestern values and the importance he places on morality and decency. Gatsby is isolated from everyone by the fact that he can never actually be himself - he is always playing a role and putting on his "Oxford man" persona. It may be this sense of feeling out of place that connects them. Outlook and Temperament.Gatsby is an optimist (almost to a delusional degree)while Nick is a realist who finds Gatsby's idealism inspiring and admirable. Gatsby believes in his ability to shape his own life and future, which makes sense since he has managed to transform himself from a farmer to a successful gangster, to impersonate an "Oxford man," and to accumulatea fantastic amount of wealth in a very short time. This belief in his power translates to Gatsby being sure that he and Daisy can go back to their month of idyllic love ("'Can't repeat the past?', he cried incredulously. 'Why of course you can!'" (6.129).Nick tries his best to be an objective realist and to reign in his tendency to judge others. He is deeply in awe of self-directed men like Gatsby, and even Wolfshiem (Nick is amazed to think that one man could be behind a huge event like therigged World Series). Ambition.Gatsby dreams of greatness. As a young man his mind â€Å"romped like the mind of God,† and so as an adult, he seems to have made good on this promise by buying the most ridiculous mansion and throwing the most extravagantparties (6.134). Nick is much less ambitious in comparison. While he comes to New York seeking excitement, he doesn't want to be the wealthiest bond salesman on Wall Street or to have the biggest house. He is happy to be an observer at the edge of the drama rather than being in its midst. Nick and GatsbyEssay Ideas Here arepotential arguments to build on or disagree with based our observations. These are certainly not the only possible arguments, so be creative! Make sure your essay considers what the similarities and differences between Nick and Gatsby reveal about the novel as a whole. Nick is a passive person and Gatsby is active, which is why Gatsby is the hero and Nick simply the observer. Nick has much more in common with Gatsby than he thinks he does, which explains why he becomes so enamored of him. Nick serves as a foil (someone whoserves as a contrast)to Gatsby, which makes Nick the best possible observer of Gatsby. At the end of the novel, Tom says that Gatsby â€Å"threw dirt in [Nick’s] eyes, just like Daisy’s,† meaning thatboth Nick and Daisy were taken in and could never see the true Gatsby: a narcissist and a criminal.Tom is right - the whole novel is Nick trying to spin a negative character into a positive one. Nick Carraway: master of spin or just along for the ride? Tom Buchanan and Jay Gatsby As they battle overDaisy’s love, Tom Buchanan and Jay Gatsby sometimes seem surprisingly similar - particular in their self-centeredness, wealth, and concern with appearances. At the same time, these surface parallelspoint to majorconflictsin their social class, and say a lot about the world of the novel. Appearance.Gatsby is driven by his materialism to be very invested having fashionable clothes, a beautiful mansion, and visually overwhelmingparties - for him, the outfit is the thing that makes the Oxford man. Meanwhile because Tom doesn't have to dress the part of the moneyed elite to be one, he is instead veryattuned to the behavior of others. This is why he immediately seeshow fakeGatsby's persona is, both because of Gatsby's overly ostentatious clothes, and because of how much Gatsby misreads the fake invitation from the Sloanes. Tom is never fooled into thinking that Gatsby isanything other than an upstart, and mostly likely a criminal one. Self-Centeredness.Tom and Gatsbyare both completely selfish, and fully convinced that their desires have to be acquiesced to by those around them. Tom, for example, starts his affair with Myrtle by pressing himself against her on a train platform - basically, his version of flirting is bodily assault. Gatsby, meanwhile, also thinks nothing of starting anaffair with a married woman, assuming that his obsessive feelings are enough to justify any behavior. Wealth.Despite the fact that both are unimaginably rich, these men come from totally different sides of the big money divide.Tom comes fromold money and is forever worried about the encroachment of the nouveau riche, minorities, and others onto what he thinks is his. At the same time, Gatsby is the most successful of the novel's many ambitious social climbers, using his lack of ethical scruples to parlay his criminal activity into a higher social status. Power.Tom loves being powerful and wieldshis power directly. He is physically aggressive and uses his body to threaten and intimidate (Nick, for one, is clearly very cowed by Tom's bulk). He is also quick to violence, whether it's socially sanctioned - like his football accomplishments - or not - like when he breaks Myrtle's nose without a second thought.Gatsby also holdssignificant power, but his methods are much more indirect. Still, whether he is offering Nick some illegal bond trading action, or showing off his get-out-of-a-ticket-free card to a cop on the highway, Gatsby is clearly happy to be in control of a situation. Love. Tom and Gatsby both seem to be in love with Daisy. But what does that really mean to each of them? For Tom, Daisy is clearly partly appealing because she completes his horse-riding, East Egg, 350-thousand-dollar pearl necklace lifestyle. He cheats on her because he clearly has never denied himself anything, but he also understands Daisy as a person. He knows that she is too weak to leave him, but he also loves her enough to tolerate her affair with Gatsby and to stay with her after Myrtle's murder.Gatsby's love, on the other hand, is in some ways purer because he so idealizes Daisy and connects her to all of his other hopes and dreams. But this love is overly pure - he doesn't really seem to know Daisy as anything other than an idealized object, and is incapable of accepting that she has led a life apart from him for five years. Tom and Gatsby Essay Ideas In a compare/contrast essay, you can’t just present a list of similarities and differences. You also need to have an underlying argument you’re supporting. Feel free to take these at face value or as jumping-off points for your own thoughts. Tom loves Daisy as a person, Gatsby loves her as an idea. Both Tom and Gatsby’s tendency to control women and see them as prizes reveals the misogyny of the 1920s. Although Tom sees Gatsby as someone from an entirely different class than him, what they have in common (selfishness, affairs, obsession with appearances) makes a larger argument for an overall moral hollowness of the rich of any class. We see both Gatsby and Tom through the eyes of Nick, who worships one of them and hates the other. In reality, they are both much more similar than different, and their different treatment reveals Nick's insecurities and biases. Gatsby gives new meaning to letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Tom Buchanan and George Wilson At first, most readers see Tom Buchanan and George Wilsonas opposites. But, these markedly different characters face very similar circumstances andoffer two takes on masculinity and power in the novel. Appearance and Presence.Where Tom is strong and cowering, George is meek and shrinking. Tom exudes power and confidence while George tends to just fade into the background. These differences are borne out in the way these two men interact with the world. Tom is violent towards others, while George’s instinct is to be passive or to try and escape situations, the notable exceptions being his locking up of Myrtle and murder of Gatsby. Tom is confident, privileged, and assured while George is timid; George is â€Å"ruled by his wife† where Tom is selfish and acts on his own desires. Reaction to Adversity. There is a dramatic difference in the way the two menreactto the factthat their wives are cheating on them. Tom notices Daisy’s love for Gatsby and immediately starts making power plays. On the other hand, George discovers Myrtle’s affair and is undone by it. Nick compares the two men in a memorable description: â€Å"the shock had made him physically sick. I stared at him and then at Tom, who had made a parallel discovery less than an hour beforeand it occurred to me that there was no difference between men, in intelligence or race, so profound as the difference between the sick and the well. Wilson was so sick that he looked guilty, unforgivably guiltyas if he had just got some poor girl with child" (7.160). In this description, Tom is â€Å"well† and George is â€Å"sick.† Theseare certainly arresting ways to describe Tom's more traditional masculinity and George's less overtly masculine character. Tom is self-assured in the face of adversity and immediately takes action to win Daisyback,insisting on driving Gatsby's car, bullying those around him into driving to Manhattan, and using his romance skills to remind Daisy of the pluses of their relationship. Meanwhile, George's weaknessmakeshim look sick and guilty as he contemplates Myrtle's betrayal and isdriven to violence to reassert his power over her. Approach to Women.Both Tom and George assume they know what’s best for their wives: Tom dismisses Daisy’s professed love for Gatsby despite their obvious closeness, while George is determined to take Myrtle out west once he learns about the affair. But, while it seems that Tom does fundamentally understand Daisy and is right about her unwillingness to leave their marriage, George is unable to hold on to Myrtle either emotionally or physically. She is killed trying to run away from him. Tom and George Essay Ideas Differences in attitude and outcome, despite a relatively similar situation, reveal some unexpectedtruths aboutthe world of the novel. Argue the reverse of any of these topics for a really provocative essay! The fact that Tom manipulates George into killing Gatsby and then himself (which allows Tom and Daisy to walk away from the entire affair without consequence) shows the huge privileges of having money in the novel. Nick's approach to Tom and George shows his admiration of a physical, brutish, domineering kind of masculinity. The fact that the relatively good guy turns into a murderer while the bad guy lives to cheat another day isavery cynical takeon what happens in a world without a moral compass. Perhaps it shouldn't be surprised that the meeker man turns out to be the ultraviolent one. Daisy Buchanan and Jordan Baker Despite Daisy Buchanan and Jordan Baker'ssimilar â€Å"white girlhoods† (1.140) in Louisville, their attitude and motivations are quite distinct, making them really interesting to compare and contrast. Attitude and Outlook.Both Daisy and Jordan display an entitled, bored attitude that’s typical of Fitzgerald’s depiction of the old money segment of wealthy New York society. The fact that they are introduced in tandem, both lying on the couches in their white dresses, speaks to their initially similar attitudes. But soon we see how different their takes on this kind of life are.Daisy is increasingly despondent, even nihilistic, asking in Chapter 7, â€Å"what shall we do today, and tomorrow, and for the next thirty years?† (7.74). Jordan meanwhile is a pragmatic opportunist, who sees possibilities everywhere, arguingthat â€Å"life starts all over again when it gets crisp in the fall† (7.75). In other words, Daisy’s pessimistic attitude from Chapter 1 comes through again, while Jordan, despite coming across as cynical and sharp, actually still seems excited about the possibilities life has to offer. Appearance and Personality.Both Daisy and Jordan very alluring in their own way, though Daisy’s allure comes through her enchanting voice and feminine charms, while Jordan is masculine, â€Å"jaunty,† witty, sharp, and physical.Daisy maintains a squeaky-clean reputation despite moving with a fast crowd, while there are plenty of rumors about Jordan’s cheating in golf, and Nick comments on her dishonest attitude.More significantly, Daisy is incredibly self-absorbed while Jordan is very observant. Role in Society.Daisy seems caught between what society expects of her and some deeper, more powerful desires she can’t name, resulting in restlessness, depression, and her affair.Daisy is sticking to her prescribed societal role by marrying and having a child, while Jordan plays golf, â€Å"runs around town† and doesn’t seem to be in a hurry to marry, at least in the beginning of the novel. Perhaps Jordan is still somewhat optimistic about the possibilities of life since she hasn’t settled down yet, while Daisy realizes that nothing major in her life will change at this point.Jordan, meanwhile, is content to chase after fun and intrigue via other people’s bad behavior. And she doesn’t get dragged down by the tragedy in the book – on the contrary, she is callous in how little Myrtle’s death seems to shake her, coolly calling Nick the next day and asking him to meet like nothing has happened (8.50-61). Perhaps her motivations are a bit less accessible to the reader since her role was significantly downsized between some of Fitzgerald’s earlier drafts. But in any case, as we watch Daisy struggle in her marriage, what we see of Jordan is cool, calm, collected, and rather uncaring. Daisy and Jordan Essay Ideas So what are some possible conclusions we can draw from Daisy and Jordan’s characters? One of the most common strategies is to tie the differences between these women onto oneof the book’s larger themes, like the role of society and class or the American Dream. Another is to think about an important feature of the novel, like Nick’s narration, and see what these two characters can reveal about it. With those strategies in mind, here are some potential arguments you could argue for or against! Jordan and Daisy, because they are generally disempowered, both use their sexuality in different ways to gain power, with different results. Despite Jordan’s overt cheating and lying, Daisy is, in fact, the more morally compromisedperson. The way Nick treats Jordan versus the way he describes Daisy revealsthe novel’s preoccupation with Gatsby above all, to the detriment of the female characters. Dear Diary: Today I cheated at golf yet again! But it was nothing compared to what my friend Daisy did... Daisy Buchanan and Myrtle Wilson While Daisy Buchanan and Myrtle Wilson obviously come from very different backgrounds and have conflicting motivations, they also have some surprising similarities. Physical Appearance.Daisy and Myrtle both derive power from their looks. Myrtle's comfort with hervoluptuous bodyis clearly appealing to Tom, while Daisy's magnetic voice and ethereal presence obsess Gatsby. Throughout the novel, Myrtle is frequently reduced to being just a body - one to be used or violated by those around her. Tom sees little inMyrtle besides someone to either rub up against, have sex with, or punch at will; George resorts to imprisoning Myrtle while she eggs him on to "beat" her (7.314) the way Tom does; and finally, Daisy gruesomely rips Myrtle's body apart with a car. Meanwhile, Daisy's voice also serves to make her less of a person in her own right and more of an idealized, mythic figure from fairy tales. For Gatsby, Daisy's voice is appealing because it is "full of money" (7.105) - he is attracted to her not because of who she is, but because he sees her as a prize. Social Standing.Myrtle puts on the airs that Daisy has been born and raised with. This allows Myrtle to wield considerable social power within her group, as seen by how her guests fawn on her at the Manhattan party she throws. Daisy, in contrast, never exerts such overt power over a group – rather, she seems to move with crowds, doing what it expected of her (for instance marrying Tom despite still loving Gatsby). Love and Relationships.Daisy and Myrtle’s marriages are strikingly quite different. Daisy and Tom are able to stay together even through serial affairs and murder. They end uployal co-conspirators, protected by their wealth. Meanwhile, Myrtle has nothing but disdain forGeorge despite his evident love for her. Still, both womenuse affairs with other men as a way toescape. Daisy wants to get away from an increasingly unhappy marriage and try to recapture the spontaneity and possibility of her youth, while Myrtle loves the status that her affair with Tom grants her.However, both learn that they can’t escape forever through their affairs. Obviously, their biggest difference is thatDaisy gets to walk away from the novel unscathed, while Myrtle gets killed. Daisy and Myrtle Essay Ideas Here are ways to write about these different women who face similar choices with dramatically opposite conclusions. Despite their similarities in action and motivation, Daisy is protected from any lasting harm by her wealth and old money status, while Myrtle is punished for the same behavior, revealing how the class system in America protects the wealthy. The novel refuses to give any inner life to women, and instead reduces them to their physical qualities no matter what social class they come from. Daisy and Myrtle's similar treatment by the narrator and by the men around them shows that gender trumps class when determining status. Daisy and Myrtle’s similarities reveal how hollow the progress of the women’s movement really was at that point in time. Despite the big gains the movement made in the early twentieth century, including winning the right to vote and pushing for more freedom in how they could dress and act, both of these women’s lives aren’t vastly improved. They’re both trapped in unhappy marriages, they both rely on their looks/charms/sexuality to get what they want, and neither of them has even a chance of pursuing a fulfilling life through a career. The butterfly may be beautiful, but it's still trapped. What’s Next? Now that you’ve gone over the novel’s most popular compare/contrast pairings, check outour analysis of the novel’s romantic pairings in our guide to love, desire, and relationships in The Great Gatsby. Have an essay about a symbol or motif? Get started with our symbols overviewand motifs overview. Still a little hazy on some of the plot elements in Gatsby? Not to worry, we have you covered with our complete book summary! Want to improve your SAT score by 160 points or your ACT score by 4 points?We've written a guide for each test about the top 5 strategies you must be using to have a shot at improving your score. Download it for free now: