I have a few comments to make about Joe Goldberg’s column, which appeared in the May 7th issue. I don’t understand why Goldberg is criticizing the “Gatsbys” of the world, and calling them the anti-heroes. On the surface of Fitzgerald’s book, yes, one sees that Gatsby is up to some not-so-good things. However, we see that 1) he is actually working for them, and 2) he has a noble reason: he loves Daisy. I don’t see how one can consider Tom Buchanan to be any better than Gatsby. Buchanan was given life on a silver platter, went to a great school, and was able to sweep Daisy off her feet with a fortune with which Gatsby would spend the rest of his life trying to compete. Gatsby is the one truly noble character in the book — he is the only one who truly believes in love. Goldberg calls Gatsby a hedonist, yet Gatsby’s desire to amass wealth is only driven by his love of Daisy. The only reason he bought the massive house across the lake and threw the huge parties was to attract Daisy’s attention — he didn’t do any of it for himself, whereas Tom Buchanan wants wealth for wealth’s sake. He has everything Gatsby ever wanted, yet is not happy, so he has an affair with Myrtle. How, then, is Buchanan not the hedonist? He wanted Daisy, so he took her. She no longer satisfied him, so he took Myrtle, too. Is it better to have the Bushes/ Buchanans of the world inheriting things passionlessly, taking what they can get because it’s their right? I, myself, would prefer a world full of Gatsbys. We all dream of lofty careers, and Gatsby was no different — Gatsby didn’t want to end up in the drug trade, but he did whatever it took for Daisy’s sake, because he thought that she still loved him. I would rather have a world full of passionate Gatsbys than a world of sniveling Buchanans, who are incapable of taking responsibility for their actions. Even when Daisy runs over Myrtle in Gatsby’s car, neither Tom nor Daisy takes responsibility — they just leave Gatsby holding the bag, and they think it’s okay. Gatsby had to learn responsibility when he was a poor man, starting out after having been an officer in the Army, but the Buchanans were so immersed in their shallow little crystalline world that they never had to learn, nor did they want to. Are we to believe that the Buchanans are the heroes? Are these the people we’re supposed to want to be? They are responsible for nothing, they are respectful of nothing, and their hearts are full of nothing. Give me a flesh-and-blood Gatsby any day, but a Buchanan? No thank you — they wouldn’t match the furniture.

– Elizabeth Evans is a freshman international affairs major.