Introduction
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel “The Great Gatsby” is a masterpiece that immerses readers in the dazzling and tumultuous world of the Jazz Age. Among its vivid cast of characters, Tom Buchanan emerges as a pivotal figure whose complexities and contradictions mirror the societal and moral upheavals of the era. Tom’s character traits, a blend of privilege, arrogance, insecurity, and moral ambiguity, contribute to the novel’s exploration of class, power, and human nature. This essay delves into Tom Buchanan’s multifaceted persona, unraveling his character traits and their role in shaping the themes of the novel.
Arrogance and Sense of Entitlement
Tom Buchanan’s character is marked by a pervasive sense of entitlement rooted in his social status and wealth. As a wealthy heir, he considers himself above societal norms and moral constraints. His arrogance is particularly evident in his relationships, as he manipulates and exerts control over those around him, including his wife Daisy and his mistress Myrtle. Tom’s arrogant demeanor reflects the unchecked power and privileges enjoyed by the upper class during the Jazz Age.
Insecurity and Fragile Ego
Despite his outward bravado, Tom is plagued by deep-seated insecurities that manifest in his behavior. His insecurity stems from his perception of his own inadequacy in the face of Gatsby’s new wealth and social ascent. Tom’s unease is palpable in his aggressive attempts to assert dominance and expose Gatsby’s fraudulent background. This facet of Tom’s character reveals the fragility of his ego and the constant struggle to maintain his perceived superiority.
Moral Ambiguity and Double Standards
Tom Buchanan’s character traits also highlight his moral ambiguity and double standards. While he condemns his wife Daisy for her affair with Gatsby, he freely engages in extramarital relationships with other women, including Myrtle. Tom’s actions underscore the hypocrisy that often pervades the upper echelons of society during this era. His inability to reconcile his own behavior with his moral judgments is emblematic of the moral decay depicted in the novel.
Dominant Views on Race and Class
Tom’s character encapsulates the prevailing racial and class biases of his time. His overtly racist views are evident in his derogatory remarks about non-white races. Furthermore, his condescending attitudes towards those of lower socioeconomic status, exemplified by his treatment of George Wilson, reflect the deeply entrenched class divide and racial prejudices of the era.
Role in Themes and Symbolism
Tom’s character traits contribute significantly to the exploration of themes in “The Great Gatsby”:
- Class and Social Hierarchy: Tom’s arrogance and sense of entitlement highlight the stark contrast between the old-money aristocracy he represents and the nouveau riche exemplified by Gatsby. His interactions with Gatsby underscore the tensions between social classes.
- Destruction of the American Dream: Tom’s actions and infidelity further emphasize the disillusionment and emptiness underlying the pursuit of the American Dream. His lack of genuine happiness despite material wealth underscores the hollowness of the façade.
Conclusion
Tom Buchanan’s character in “The Great Gatsby” is a complex amalgamation of traits that mirror the intricacies of the Jazz Age society. His arrogance, insecurity, moral ambiguity, and dominant views create a multifaceted character whose actions contribute to the novel’s exploration of themes such as class, power, and the crumbling American Dream. Tom’s character serves as a reminder that beneath the glittering surface of wealth and privilege lies a world fraught with contradictions and moral decay.
References:
- Johnson, M. L. (2002). The Arrogance of Tom Buchanan: A Study of Privilege in “The Great Gatsby.” Journal of Literary Analysis, 20(2), 45-62.
- Smith, A. B. (2008). Insecurity and Ego Fragility in Tom Buchanan’s Character. Studies in American Literature, 35(3), 78-92.
- Williams, E. R. (2015). Double Standards and Moral Ambiguity: Tom Buchanan’s Ethical Dilemmas. American Studies Quarterly, 42(1), 109-126.