Today (10/04/2025) marks 100 years since F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby was published. Not only is it regarded as one of Fitzgerald’s greatest works, it has also been described as “the greatest American novel” for the way that it captures the essence of American culture. The significance of the novel’s key themes has transcended the twentieth century and remained relevant in today’s society. Set against the background of opulence and inequality, its deep criticism of the American Dream highlights the damaging nature of materialism, which remains an especially poignant topic in the current age of over consumption and social comparison.
1920s America was characterised by the pursuit of the American Dream, an ideal that promised upward mobility and the opportunity for success to anyone who was willing to work for it, regardless of their socio-economic background. The reality was quite different, with the pursuit of this ideal becoming the downfall of many. Fitzgerald littered his novel with symbols that he used to expose the inequality and illusion that underpinned the façade that so many bought into.
One such symbol is the “green light that burns all night at the end of [Daisy’s] dock”.[1] Fitzgerald presents Jay Gatsby, the novel’s main protagonist, as the ultimate self-made man, and it transpires throughout the novel that the motivation behind his pursuit of wealth was to win over Daisy Buchanan. Gatsby fixates on the green light, stretching “out his arms towards” it, as though trying to obtain it.[2] It becomes a symbol of his hopes of being with Daisy, achieving her romantic affections to complete his image. Light cannot in fact be held. Thus, Fitzgerald portrays Daisy as something that can never be his. It was never about being with Daisy for who she is, rather for her status, which Gatsby realises when he begins an affair with her and “the colossal significance of that light” vanishes.[3]
“Daisy tumbled short of his dreams – not through her own fault, but because of the colossal vitality of his illusion”.[4]
The deception of the American Dream renders true connection and happiness an impossibility, being replaced by materialism and social status. In today’s age of social comparison, Gatsby’s fixation on the green light, symbolising an “orgastic future” of unattainable dreams and unhappiness, could perhaps be compared to the disillusionment many of us feel towards our over-saturated social media feeds.[5] Social media facilitates the portrayal of a “mythical self”, as people are able to present highly-constructed, polished versions of their lives on these platforms. Exposed to countless portrayals of influencers and perfect feeds, many of us aspire to keep up with, and achieve similar lives. This ultimately leads to disappointment, however, as what we see on social media is not an accurate representation. We are simply shown the highlights, and are disillusioned when our lives fall short of the unattainable façade.
Furthermore, Fitzgerald exposes the class inequality that prevailed in 1920s America, despite the illusion of social mobility. At the end of the novel, despite Daisy being the one driving the car when Myrtle was killed, and thus being responsible for her death, she and her husband Tom “retreated back into their money” as though nothing had happened.[6] The narrator, Nick Carraway, discovers that Daisy “and Tom had gone away”, without having to face any consequence.[7] Here, they are protected by their old money, while Myrtle Wilson and Gatsby are killed for aspiring towards a life above their social standing, by chasing romantic relationships with Tom and Daisy respectively. Fitzgerald’s commentary raises questions of economic inequality, social responsibility, and privilege that are still relevant today.
Combining the consequences of inequality and materialism, the “eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleberg”, that look over the Valley of Ashes, become a powerful symbol of the damaging nature of consumerism in the novel.[8] Belonging to a billboard that “some wild wag of an oculist” set there “to fatten his practice”, before leaving the advertisement there to decay, the disembodied eyes appear to be all-seeing. After Myrtle’s death, her bereaved husband, George, cries, “You can fool me, but you can’t fool God!”, while “looking at the eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleberg”.[9] His neighbour, Michaelis, assures him that it is simply “an advertisement”.[10] Here, Fitzgerald positions a symbol of consumerism as a God-like figure, illustrating the power that it has over society. After George admits that he “don’t belong to any” church, it is clear that consumerism has replaced religion, faith, and true meaning.[11] Through this, Fitzgerald highlights the moral corruption of society. George becomes a victim of the hierarchies of capitalism when he loses his wife to the carelessness of the wealthy, as Daisy hits Myrtle while driving Gatsby’s car. George is also condemned to his low-class status by Tom’s hollow promise of custom, when he promises to sell him his car, through which George hopes to make money. His hope of bettering himself is dependent on those with money, which undermines the false promise that anyone could achieve the American Dream if they simply worked hard enough.
In The Great Gatsby, therefore, Fitzgerald dismantles the empty ideal of the American Dream. He draws attention to the way in which consumerism, by replacing the search for deeper happiness and connection, leads to disillusionment and, ultimately, a sense of loss. In this way, he offers a critical reflection on the emptiness that can arise when society values material wealth over emotional and spiritual well-being. 100 years on from the novel’s publication, it is worth considering how the illusions of perfection, the pressures of material success, and the constant pursuit of wealth, status, and superficial pleasure continue to impact our lives.
[1] F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby (London: Penguin Books Ltd, 1925), 90.
[2] Ibid., 25.
[3] Ibid., 90.
[4] Ibid., 25.
[5] Ibid., 171.
[6] Ibid., 170.
[7] Ibid., 156.
[8] Ibid., 26.
[9] Ibid., 152.
[10] Ibid., 152.
[11] Ibid. 150.