Growing up Disney; Growing up Different: Cripping the Cartoons; Glitching the Games

So I recently watched Wreck-it-Ralph for the first time. And I loved it! I'm not gonna lie I actually cried! Finally a character that looks like me! She's artsy, she likes powerful cars, she doesn't wear dresses comfortably, she knows what she wants, and she's glitchy. She has "pixlexia" (Does mean dyslexia or seizures?)

Some of you have heard me say that comparing mermaids to little cripple girls, who trade their voice for painful working legs is all kinds of wrong. It's still wrong but deciding to keep your glitch and still be a winner and leader is a little bit better.

But it got me thinking, which according to both Vanellope and Lefou from Beauty and the Beast is "dangerous". What's with these sexist ablest game characters? Disney can make a movie about a glitchy five-year-old video game character, which is a big step up from The Little Mermaid or Finding Nemo, but seriously, a princess?! Where is the character who doesn't walk? That isn't sexy? Who has no control over her abs?

Dear Sims, why is it that I can be  queer in your game, (albeit gender binary and  patriarchal) but I can't have my chair? Why is it that I get more points for hiring a nanny and working, than I do for making it work? Why can't I practice making it work more like it would in my real life?

And why is okay for Dr. Xavier to be disabled because he was disabled in battle? Is it also more okay because he has a superpower to overcome it? Why can't we have any girls who are supercrips?

I want a power chair in a game. I want a joystick with an onboard computer. I want heatseeking missiles. I went damage resistant rubber tires, and a seat that doubles as a flotation device. I want 007 theme music. I want the whole 9 yards, and I want to look like me while doing it.


And I want a lot of little lost boys and girls trailing behind me when I do it. After we've freed them from the pirates (the mean and bad ones who aren't like us SU kids who learned from Alison Kafer). But these kids should look a lot more like Hook than Pan, having had their own battles with crocodiles, or perhaps even been cast off in their prams by nursery maids who weren't ready to deal with the fact that they were just a little bit different.

Luckily, I've reconnected with a friend who is a blogger and a gamer. She's much more talented than I am. Punchdrunk Games is awesome because they have female lead characters. But after you finish Regicide, I want a game,  Featuring us, and our awesomeness! In all our glorious colors. The Glitchy Gamer Girls.

Cinema & Theology Response #1 (Pan’s Labyrinth): “What makes you so sure the baby is a male?”

Pan’s Labyrinth is a beautiful film. It’s cinematically gorgeous and has a lot of imagination. As a fan of Rick Riordan, I especially like the references to the Greek pantheon and that regular kids might have a connection to superordinate powers. The revolutionaries often have rather poignant quotes about their condition and their perspective on life.

For example, “Capitán Vidal: You could have obeyed me!

Doctor: But captain, to obey - just like that - for obedience's sake... without questioning... That's something only people like you do. “

Also,

“Carmen: You're getting older, and you'll see that life isn't like your fairy tales. The world is a cruel place. And you'll learn of that, even if it hurts.”

But what are we actually saying in the majority of this movie? What are we saying about the value of lesser people? About who has power, and why? Yes Ofelia has power, and so does Carmen, but not the kind I want. I don’t want the Captain’s violence either Ofelia only has power in fairy tales. In magical adventures where she gets to use her intelligence and strong moral spirit. And then she gets punished for it, in the real world, even by her own mother. It would have been very sad if in her maturity, she would be jaded like Mercedes: “No. But when I was a little girl, I did. I believed in a lot of things I don't believe anymore”.

Her mother has the power to create children, but only at the expense of her own life. Indeed, she is only valued as long as the child can be saved. Ofelia believes she has the power to make her brother a prince in exchange for saving their mother. Even if their mother had survived, does Ofelia have that authority? In any case, she is giving up some of her authority to him. What we saying when we only give women generative or sacrificial power? Even worse, when it’s a 10-year-old girl, who is not allowed to believe in fairy tales. She gets the beautiful palace, but only when she dies first. Is this real, is this her imagination, or is this some definition of the afterlife? Why is this somehow a darker impression for me than the end of the Chronicles of Narnia series? Is it because it only happens to a girl, and the boy is spared? Or is it because this story collapses the coronation at the end of the first book with the end of the last book where we found out the main characters twist of fate? At what point will we be able to say to our brokenness:

 “No. He won't even know your name”.

When will we actually mean it as truth and not as a cover up?

 

 

Discussion question: In Pan’s Labyrinth, What are we saying about the value of lesser people? About who has power, and why?

 

 

Entry 10: Being Grafted in- Place, Names, Personal History, and Money in Abide with Me

Tyler Caskey thinks all it takes to make Lauren Slatin into a minister's wife is a marriage certificate and a slightly uncomfortable wedding.  After all, "They were in love by the benediction.... was this God's will?  It was.  They were lifted into the wonderous arms of God, for God is love, and love filled Tyler to the point of dizziness... waiting in the quiet of the study for that sparkle to flash through the phone... love is always God's work."  If it is God's work, why would warrant have any trouble fitting into the role as it is designed?  Tyler is used to having things work out.  For example, "Tyler had driven back from Brockmorton that afternoon understanding that the seminary's campus belonged to other men, and yet it had seemed, when he was a student there, to be constructed wholly and utterly for him... the building seemed diminished, as though it had shriveled imperceptibly, taking with it the stateliness Tyler's younger self had imbued it with."  People and places do not take on the qualities we wish them to simply because we love them, or because we idealize them, in idealizing ourselves.  More to the point, Lauren Caskey will not give up her love of money, status, socializing, and having pretty things simply because she loves Tyler.  She will not be happy in a small town, with very little money, a budget, and no gossip simply because Tyler has laid down the law.  She never calls him Reverend, because she does not want the rights and responsibilities of being a Reverend's wife. 
However, even though we cannot influence interests and personality traits by loving them into someone, it seems that in this book characters are labeled by their names and name changes reflect a hidden or dualistic personality.Let's take the name Caskey: first there's the obvious association with caskets, especially given Tyler's occupation as a minister.  Does this foreshadow in some way Lauren's death?  It could also be associated with the word cask meaning barrel, although Tyler does not appear as of yet to have a drinking problem.  What else does he struggle with addiction to?  His theology?  Being obsessive about memorizing his sermons?  Or ironically, given our framework for the course, the life and theology of Kierkegaard?  Does he keep something inside his barrel, perhaps self-centeredness?  Maybe Charlie Andrews is right, maybe there is a darkness inside Tyler, beneath that smiling demeanor, born out of always putting others first.  Maybe Tyler stands for tyrant, or tied down his parents.  I think that in Lauren's name there is lament, or perhaps even a reference to Ralph Lauren, since she likes clothing to the point of hoarding.  Slatin is an overt reference to how breakable both her body and her image are.  Her reputation as a minister's wife and for being moneyed are all based on someone supporting her continually, despite her reckless habits.  Even her father predict this is not going to end well, but Tyler loves her too much to see the downside of her reckless nature, and everyone else gives her "credit" (with multilayered meaning) because she's the minister's wife.  Slate is a rock that while very beautiful and very soft breaks off into sheets and fragments under pressure.  Lauren hates money arguments and cannot stand to hear them.  She breaks apart from Tyler and her own sanity when she realizes she cannot be what is expected of her in the small town as a wife, mother, and upstanding citizen.  This is much more than postpartum depression.  Her breakdown in the station sounds a lot like a severe panic attack, or a small nervous breakdown.  It could also mean that the cancer had already advanced to her brain, causing her to hillucinate or lose memory and neurological skills.  One could argue that the breakdown is a symptom of the cancer, but one could just as easily argue that cancer, in this case, as it often is in reality, is psychosomatic.  Lauren's body develops cancer because who she is is fundamentally and physically incompatible with the situation she finds herself in.  No one thinks she belongs there, not her family or her current community.  They don't want to hear about her troubles.  Her family wants nothing to do with her, aside from sending her money (which they knew would be necessary).  They are so sure of her doomed incompatibility that they are utterly convinced she will die.  I would venture to conclude that they would still hold this opinion if the story were set in the modern era, and cancer had a better prognosis.  Lauren does not have a place in West Arnett, no real best friend except her husband.  Not even with Carol Meadows.  I'm not sure if Meadows means "mellow" or "meddles" at this point, but I hear distance in their conversations.  Connie Hatch is obvious: Connie for con artist, and Hatch is in "escape hatch". It is right after Katherine is born that Tyler is accused of becoming too Catholic, because he uses his arms too much while preaching.  She is also the only one who acts out her anger at her mother's death.  She was also the talkative one, who played with words, and said whatever she thought.  Now she has nothing to say, but physically demonstrates her pain.  Katherine is waiting for catharsis, but acting out isn't working.  Jeannie is congenial and happy wherever she is, like her name. Alison Chase is always trying to chase Tyler down.  think about the incident with the apple crisp.  It may actually be true Tyler hates the smell of apples after his wife's death, but it may be more true subconsciously that Tyler knows that this attempted offering of food may be Alison's attempt to "chase" down Reverend Caskey.  She may not be the only one.  Remember Ora's comment about Doris Andrews "'Doris wants that new organ even more than she wants to divorce Charlie and marry you'".  The name Doris fits her character when one thinks about how it rhymes with Dolores, which means "full of pain and tears".  She is full of pain about Charlie and his explosive nature, not to mention his affairs.  Charlie could be short for Charlie horse, which has a double meaning in that  his anger and emotion jumps out at random and inexplicable times, and that it causes extreme bursts of pain in whoever his anger is (mis) directed toward.  At this point I'm not sure whether the characters have intertwining storylines relating to their names, or if each one should be treated individually.  They're definitely relating to the status of each person, which, true to small-town life greatly contributes to the identity of each person.  Identity is important.  It speaks to who we are and who we are; what we do and where we belong.  It also has to do with who has power, including where and when they exercise it.  This in many ways is controlled by money (the board approving the housekeeper, or raise versus the new organ).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The people without money are not composed: Connie Hatch is not composed (is always worried, is accused of stealing money from patients); Reverend Caskey is not composed, and neither is his wife (Lauren ran them into debt by being unwise and secretive about her compulsive need for pretty things; Tyler feels the need to keep up appearances by not asking for help, believing that love renders all other problems nonexistent).  Both have their respective homages to Lady Macbeth, the stress of wanting too much (in Lauren's case), or doing too much (Tyler) brings them to the brink of insanity and perhaps collective self destruction.  I'm thinking in particular of the breakdown Tyler experiences during his 'best' sermon.  Like Lady Macbeth, Lauren dies accusing her husband of cowardice.  But I wonder if money and power through pharmaceuticals also given him something else in common with the Scottish Lord.  Murder.  I think Tyler is conflicted about this too.  Is assisted suicide murder?  Is leaving something out and not being in the room assistance?  Does it matter if your terminal?  Was Lauren able to make her own decision?  Did Katherine see that take place and stop talking?  How is Connie involved, considering her actual history?  Does it make a difference considering Tyler's vocation as a minister?  I think it's good that he is questioning his role in Lauren's death and the morality of his decision, but I see it as highly morally questionable that the establishment of the Church merely pats him on the back, chalks it up to grief and puts him back on the horse to start over.  I'm all for rebuilding relationships, but I'm more than slightly worried about the future of a Church that would send someone who is not sure if they murdered their wife, and has just recently decided to continue raising both his daughters who have developed grief related disabilities (and probably inherited a few from Lauren) should be the sole head of a congregation.  At the very least, he needs counseling and heavy support from church membership.

Entry 9: (Asher Lev) "Artist's Eyes: From the Other Side or Gifts of the Spirit?"

That night I began to realize that something was happening to my eyes.  I looked at my father and saw lines and planes I'd never seen before.  I could feel with my eyes.  I could feel my eyes moving across the lines around his eyes and into and over the deep furrows on his forehead. He was thirty-five years old, and there were lines on his face and forehead.  I could feel the lines with my eyes and feel, too, the long straight flat bridge of his nose in the clear darkness of his eyes and the strong thick curves of the red eyebrows and the thick red hair of his beard graying a little-I saw this stray gray strands in a tangle of hair below his lips.  I could feel lines and points and planes.  I could feel texture and color.  I saw the Shabbos candles on the table glowing gold and red.  I saw my mother small and warm and silken in a lovely Shabbos dress of pale blue and white.  I saw my hands white and bony, my fingers long and thin, my face in the mirror above the buffet table with black eyes and wild red hair.  I felt myself flooded with the shapes and textures of the world around me.  I close my eyes.  But I can still see that way inside my head.  I was seeing with another pair of eyes that had suddenly come awake.  I sat still in my chair and felt frightened.

Asher Lev sees with artist's eyes.  I know how that feels.  I know what it means to wonder what it would look like when it's drawn.  Many people have commented to me about my surprising eye for detail in my drawings and paintings, most recently last week, on observing my last acrylic landscape.  I also know what it's like to have one's gift denied.  Indeed, it was not so long ago that a teacher was limited thinking dismissed me from her classroom before the first day of school, using the lack of turning space in her classroom as a way to keep less-than-perfect artists out of her advanced class.  I was warmly accepted into the theatre class, and luckily, lack of credit has never stopped me from doing much of anything!  I've had similar experiences in dance, regarding my imperfections, or that God would allow me to dance if I didn't have my disability.  If I really liked to dance so much, I would give up this little part of myself.Like Asher studying, I remember pretending to have and trying to foster in myself 'acceptable' gifts, (speaking in tongues and visions) while silencing and submerging others I actually had greater blessings in (teaching, preaching and compassion). After awhile, like Asher, "I just [didn't] have the strength for it".  The secrets and the lies (and the hiding) were making me sick (much like Asher's fever).  I had much more to hide than they ever found. But my personal biography is not why I'm writing this journal entry.

I'm very interested in this idea that Asher's talent comes from the other side.  What exactly is the other side?  What is this concept of the devil?  Do we all agree on what it is?  How do we know if something is the fruit of the Spirit?  How  do we know if it is demonic?  Are we supposed to know immediately or is it in retrospect?  We are supposed to check it with the community, but which community?  Who belongs to the community?  Can the community ever be wrong?  Can we misinterpret God?  What about slavery?  It was once considered sanctioned by God.  Or institutionalization, sterilization, and forced healings.  Are left-handed people from the devil?  How do we know who is wolf in sheep's clothing?  How do we know in the short term is something bears good fruit?  How do we know if someone's talent is from the Spirit?  How do we know it in ourselves?

I think that Asher's father fears what he does not understand.  But there is something right in what he's striving for.  He is right to fight against the Devil, he is just confused as to what qualifies as the devil.  I do not think he is right, but I have been confused on this point myself, and so I cannot judge.  It is shocking that Asher has the will and the forbearance to go against his parents.  He is willing to go as far as refusing to go to Vienna, even if it breaks up his parents' marriage.  The first time I read this book in high school I did not understand what would bring a person to such a conviction as to do something so emotionally destructive.  I think I understand now, but I hope Asher makes (or in this case made) a better choice than I did.

 Alicia Nash once said that (Paraphrased from the movie A Beautiful Mind)  God must be a painter, because why else would there be so many beautiful colors.  I borrowed this quote in my first week in Sys I, because I wanted to remind myself in my statement of faith that God was the Creator who created beautiful things, and therefore must appreciate art and the art that we create as humans.

At the time I felt unproductive, and uncreative.  I had sat like a lump for year and a half.  Like Asher, I had stifled my gifts.  It was time to come out from under the rock (or hospital bed) I had been living under, and go where the Spirit was leading me.  I told myself I did not want to go, that there was nothing left in me.  Nothing left to say, no more praises.  This was not some honorable quest.  This was not walking out of the spelling bee, or going to Barbados, or refusing to go to Vienna.  I was doubtful, lost, and angry.  I was angry at the past events, and therefore angry at God.  I thought that if I put away my arts and my writing, that it would be better somehow.  I thought that if I stopped talking to God, I wouldn't have to acknowledge the fact that He was somehow tied up in the pain of all this.

But not putting paint on a canvas does not mean you're not an artist; it does not mean you stop seeing the world with artist's eyes.  It just means that everything gets stored up in your head, and you feel the need to go to the museum, with its pull to copy paintings.  You are still an artist, even if you have to steal supplies, even if you draw in class, even if you absentmindedly draw on a religious text.  Even if you try to make yourself into a straight-A student, you are still an artist, and you will do non-artistic things artistically.
Even if you have to draw with a fork and a napkin, or if you draw while you walk.

Even if you paint with the brush in your mouth or on a computer.  Even if you use masking fluid and salt.  Even if you dance on wheels, or put the pottery wheel on a stool, you are still an artist.  Somehow, someway the Spirit will make your art known.  It must bear fruit, and the fruit will come out of you even if it has to force its way out.  Whether or not anyone else acknowledges it or speaks to it, it is still there.  After all, aren't we supposed to worship God in secret, and not boast of our gifts?

I still don't know what to advise Asher about talking to his parents.  Especially if I were to do it from a pastoral perspective.  After all, I openly worship "that man", the One Chagall calls 'Jesus the Jew', the One they get blamed for murdering.  But I know three things: at least in my family, art and religion are not incompatible; my gifts are not from the Other Side; and as fellow artists and seekers of God, I think Asher and I could be friends. ...But maybe not during Easter week...If I want to incite the masses, I'll just stick to holding mock Last Suppers and nailing a wheelchair to a cross!

It is Easter Week, it is Holy Week.  Jesus will be crucified with that expression that Asher needs to draw, needs to learn.  Jesus will come to the town of Bethany to bless and to eat.  Jesus will be resurrected, and at least one girl bearing that name will claim it too.  We will all claim 'He is risen".  Alleluia!  Amen.

Entry 8 :Bloodlines, Traditions, and Community: Growth, Inheritance, and the Community of Saints

Sometimes when children have similar interests and talents as their parents it is said something is 'in their blood'.  Many things are in my blood.  Analysis, taking things apart, putting things back together, designing, numbers, crafts, art, painting, calligraphy, dance, theater, ceramics, et cetera.  Brooklyn is in Asher's blood, Hasidism is in Asher's blood.  Education and travel are in his blood.  Creativity is also in his blood, his father created schools in many countries practically out of nothing, this takes creativity and vision.  The only problem is the outlet is different.  Asher's family and community cannot understand the technicality and tradition behind what he's doing.  They know about the tradition of their religion: sacred rituals that have been passed down through the bloodline.  Asher has those traditions, but he also has a tradition of people who have gone before him in artistry.  This confuses the father, and ultimately estranges him from the community.  One could say that this finally happens when his community sees his paintings of the crucifixions, but I think the crux of this inevitable separation begins here, in this argument:

 'Because I'm part of a tradition, Papa.  Mastery of the art form of the nude is very important to that tradition.  Every important artist who ever lived drew or painted the nude.'

'Art is a tradition.'

'Yes.'

I understand.  But why is the nude so important to this tradition?'

'Because it has always been part of that tradition.'...

'I'm warning you, Asher.  One day you'll hurt someone with this kind of attitude.  And then you'll be doing the work of the sitra achra.'  Page 258.

The elder Mr. Lev claims he cannot understand the technical language his son is using, despite the fact that he is intelligent and holds a degree.  Lots of fields have technical language, including religion and political science.  I think part of the reason why technical language is escaping him in this case is that his son is trying to explain something that he views as directly opposed to his fundamental values.  These are incompatible traditions.  His current way of viewing the world makes him blind to the concepts of art.  At this point however, he is not blind to the fact that his son is respected in this field.  He is predicting that this will lead to dark, evil, and powerful things, which will cause a separation from Asher's community, and from God.  He is correct that Asher's art is and will be powerful.

Theology and Literature Journal 5 (How to Be Good): Does 'Good' = Not Sad?

What has happened to Molly in her first eight years?  More or less nothing.  We have protected her from the world as best we can.  She has been brought up in a loving home, she has two parents, she has never been hungry, and she receives an education that will prepare her for the rest of her life; and yet she is sad, and that sadness is not, when you think about it, inappropriate.  The state of the relationship between her parents makes her anxious; she has lost a loved one (and a cat); and she has realized that such losses are going to be an unavoidable part of her life in the future.  It seems to me now that the plain state of being human is dramatic enough for anyone; you don't need to be a heroin addict or a performance poet to experience extremity.  You just have to love someone.

Page 137

I don't think this is talking about the state of depravity.  I mean to say that although depravity is mentioned, to link all brokenness with sin somehow lessens the gravity of the mandate for relationship and fellowship.  After all, the statement that it is not good for humans to be alone occurs before the Fall. 

Loss is a part of life, it is part of what it means to be human.  Sadness is a necessary part of love.  If we did not mourn for the saints, it would mean that we did not properly love them and work together as the Body of Christ.  The ability to mourn for a person or situation is a marker of how we are effective and affected.  We are changed by the lives of others. 

I understand that Molly is overly stressed by her sadness, and that sometimes sadness can lead to psychological issues.  However, I don't think it is always a good idea to have the Christian life, or the message of Jesus, be portrayed as: Jesus always loves everyone, or everything is always easy, or simple, or fixable, or even about downsizing. 

I also don't think it's a good idea for a healer like GoodNews to be always associated with Jesus.  GoodNews always assumes that every problem was caused by sadness, and that everyone wants their sadness removed.  Jesus knows it is not always prudent to heal everyone.  He also knows that sadness is a necessary part of being human.  For example, he mourns and weeps for Lazarus himself.  This is a separate event from the raising of Lazarus, and it is equally, if not more, important.

I think that perhaps Molly has a gift for feeling the pain of the world.  Maybe it is not a good thing that GoodNews has taken her pain away, because it lessens their gift, and removes some of her intuition.  She has wisdom, and identifies with the marginalized people her mother is trying to save. 

Dr. Katie is trying to save the "heart-sinks" (despite her ethically skewed home life); David is trying to save the homeless (despite the holes in his belief system, and the flaws in his advertising); GoodNews is trying to save the sad (through his ecstasy stimulated hands); and Tom is simply trying to save his possessions (the status quo?). 

I think that Molly is the only one who might be successful, because she's the only one who isn't imposing her own viewpoint.  She isn't defining what it means to save, in essence, 'How to Be Good'.  Instead, she's making observations about what people need and want, as well as the best way she can be supportive. 

At eight years old, she's figured out how to help using natural supports, Person Centered Planning, and small, manageable changes.  She is also helping because she knows it is right, not because she wants the credit.  She is the least preoccupied with the concept of being Good, but I wish everyone who was devoted to helping others (the less fortunate) was this good at it: at recognizing the value in others, and what to do about honoring and including them in community, constructively.

 GoodNews is like Lois Lowry's The Giver, only backwards.  Instead of giving the people back their emotions, problems, and colors... yes even sadness, he is taking away their ability to feel the realities of being human, and the realities of participating in the world.  Beds and dishwashers or colors and twins, it's all the same problem.  This dystopian idea feels eminent.  I hope David doesn't lose the ability to hear music, too.  Soon he will need to be reminded of his own memories.  Is this better than being angry?

Theology and Literature Journal 4 (The Great Gatsby): Audience of One? Trauma, Lies, and Why We (Need to) Write

In a journal for another class (Spirituality for  Church Leaders) I once wrote that you don't have to publish anything, write continuously, or even write a lot to be a writer.  To be a writer means that you see the world in words, and most importantly, when something happens in the world that you need to process, you write about it.  Because you need to write, you can't understand it until you do, not in its full form.

Infomercial for Whit's class: Sometimes different things are highlighted the more you write about or talk about an experience, you remember things, or at certain details become more or less important.  You may choose to leave things out or alter things depending on your audience.  Perhaps you are not writing for a particular audience at all, but are simply writing for yourself.  You might leave things out of your narrative in order to protect yourself from whatever they symbolize or evoke.

Therefore I don't think Nick is lying as the narrator.  In some sense, I don't even think he knows he's a narrator.  Fitzgerald is writing stories for an audience, but Nick doesn't claim to be an author.  He initially set out to be one, but then he changed his mind and went into bonds, retaining the nickname "Shakespeare ".

My reading is more than likely informed by the recent film adaptation of the book.  In the movie, we meet Nick in a sanatorium, where he is encouraged by his doctors to use his writing talent to write about whatever he wants.  However, by being given a view of the doctor's notes via cinematic conventions, (which state that Nick is morbidly alcoholic, clinically depressed, anxious, and has fits of anger) we are led to believe that this is probably a therapeutic tool.

In writing about this experience of knowing Gatsby for months, a narrative emerges that is somewhat flawed, as all memory is flawed.  Nick's understanding is colored by his relationships with the other characters, by his perceptions and assumptions, by time and distance from the events, by his own involvement, by alcohol, and his own need for safety in telling the story.  In some of the omissions and falsehoods, I see a hint of self-preservation, and an attempt preserve identity and dignity.  Part of this is the reason behind the Fifth Amendment.

The other thing I see in the story which is important to remember is the lack of fairytale ending for any of these characters.  Daisy is traumatized because of a long separation, and because she assumed that Jay would not come home, and then she is forced to marry Tom.  There is a huge chasm between rich and poor, with almost no middle class.  All of Gatsby social mobility is based on lies he felt he had to create to escape the trauma of being dirt poor.  Jordan is only loved for being a (scandal ridden and infrequently victorious) tennis star; Tom is only known as 'Buchanan: The Polo Player'; Daisy and Pammy are supposed to be rich, beautiful, and foolish.  Myrtle is fat and silly, married to a rundown oblivious mechanic who's been swindled in every way by an unequal business partner.  Nick doesn't think his true vocation is worthwhile.  All of these lives are in some sense traumatic. 

With respect to events, the war has just ended, with death and dying everywhere.  He has been surrounded all summer, and one could argue all his life, with people who think they are gods, or sons of God, or play at being better than everyone else.  He has witnessed an argument for racial superiority, an assault on Myrtle, a jealous husband enraged, a manslaughter, (in which a pedestrian he knew was killed instantly, in a graphic way: "ripped her open"), a loving cover up (complete with confession), a framing for murder, a grief filled retaliation (inflicted on an innocent man), and a suicide.  I can relate to how this would be difficult to tell.  During a traumatic event, the brain shuts down anything that does not preserve life.  Therefore, some of the details become confused, including the order of events and exactly who did what.  In the telling and retelling of the story, sometimes it might seem that whoever was driving was not literally driving, or that people are more honest than they seem, or that Myrtle wasn't having an affair, etc. these may be coping mechanisms, but then maybe they're just simple lack of oxygen to the brain.  Nick isn't a liar.  Nobody's a liar.  It's all just a coping strategy, the whole book is a coping strategy.  For the trauma of the ending, for the trauma of life in the Jazz Age. (Unfortunately, many victims of trauma are called liars because they can't get their stories straight.  Or people think they're hiding something).

I'm interested in Kierkegaard's philosophy of how the ascetic move to the moral stage.  He says we find God because we fall into despair (true, sometimes).  Nick has certainly fallen into despair, but I would argue that young Mr. Carraway has not found God.  And I definitely don't think he is writing to God.  Instead, he writes about the events of his 30th birthday in an effort to ensure that he does not fall past God into something he cannot remedy.  Suicide cannot be remedied in this life, and there are some who say it cannot be even in the afterlife.  But above all, I believe Nick reason for writing is to "get somebody for [Gatsby]", as a final memorial to his friend, even if the only friend he "gets" is himself.  Or, in the imagination of that Baz Luhrmann, the doctor.



By the way, I don't think Meyer Wolfsheim is in despair, I think form his self protection is selfish.  He wants to run away from or let go of everyone after they die.  I think true despair is wanting to hold onto someone past everything else, and then realizing you can't.  Like Gatsby and his father, I know some things are too beautiful to let go of, even when it's obvious they're long gone.