May Day and UsaEssay Preview: May Day and UsaReport this essayIn “Mary French,” Dos Passos draws a definitive line between his feelings on capitalism and socialism, as well as the rich and the poor. The parallel lives of Eveline Johnson and Mary French reveal Dos Passoss distinct attitudes in regards to the upper and lower classes of society.
As a member of high society, Eveline Johnson exemplifies Dos Passoss attitudes of the rich. These attitudes begin to take shape as Mary French enters the party, “Eveline Johnson was ushering them through some sliding doors into a high-ceilinged room dusky from shaded lights and cigarettesmoke where they were swallowed up in a jam of welldressed people talking and making faces and tossing their heads over cocktail glasses” (1527). This description tends to lean toward the superficial and a distaste of an extravagant lifestyle. Dos Passos discretely depicts various other guests as “Kings,” “Captains,” and “Screenstars.” Mary French becomes increasingly aware of just how phony and self-centered these guests really are as she watches the party unfold, “Mary was looking at it all through a humming haze like seeing a play from way up in a smoky balcony” (1529).
Simultaneously, Eveline acknowledges that her life, a reflection of self-centered capitalism, is in fact a waste. Eveline admits, “You know it does seem too silly to spend your life filling up rooms with illassorted people who really hate each other” (1530). This moment is of significance; throughout the story Eveline and Mary have had almost identical experiences. Both women have lost the loves of their lives, but it is Mary, the determined socialist, who puts the needs of others before her own. Mary is able to continue on with what is important to her rather than escaping the harsh realities of life by means of suicide. Dos Passos has constructed a shallow illusion of what the rich are like.
The socialist attitudes of Dos Passos solidify as the events in the story unravel. Socialist attitudes are present when Mary and her parents meet for lunch. Mary French, the socialist worker, is raising money for the less fortunate mine workers. Her parents on the other hand, ” Had both made big killings on the stockexchange on the same day and they felt they owed themselves a little rest and relaxation” (1521). This is typical of self-centered capitalists. Mary is the moral center of this story. She has the will to pick herself up and continue with the unselfish intentions of the socialist party. It is clear that Mary will struggle against the forces of a capitalistic society: corruption and the use of employment to keep the workforce under control.
On the contrary, Fitzgerald draws more of a Venn diagram then a concise line concerning his attitudes towards the rich and poor, as well as capitalists and socialists. Fitzgerald incorporates two sets of characters that are on opposite sides of the economic and political spectrum. What is difficult to understand is that almost all of the characters are unsympathetic; rather, they are stuck where the two circles coincide. Fitzgerald exploits the flaws of all the characters, and leaves the choice of a hero up to the reader.
In the very beginning of the story a conflict establishes itself between Phillip Dean and Gordon Sterret. Gordon has run into financial trouble and desperately begs Dean for money. Gordon has fallen from the class of wealthy Yale students to whom Dean still belongs. Dean demonstrates the snobby attitudes of the rich by thinking to himself, “Nothing was going to spoil his trip. If Gordon was going to be depressing, then hed have to see less of Gordon” (28).
The character of Edith Bradin expresses another clear example of Fitzgeralds attitude toward the rich. She is described in the following passage as a materialistic debutante infatuated with her own beauty. “She dropped her arms to her side until they were faintly touching the sleek sheath that covered and suggested her figure. She had never felt her own softness so much nor so enjoyed the whiteness of her own arms” (44).
Fitzgerald further exemplifies his attitudes of the rich as all the characters end up at Childs for breakfast the morning after May Day. Phillip Dean stops at the table where Gordon and Jewel Hudson are seated, “Prominent Teeth shook his finger pessimistically at the pair, giving the woman a glance of aloof condemnation” (65). Clearly Dean does not approve of Jewel, strictly because she is poor. The scene continues with the childish acts of Dean and Peter as they start a game of chase with the waiter in a drunken stupor. Both men end up on a lavish eating and drinking spree around town, simply out of foolish pleasure.
On the other end of the spectrum, Fitzgerald includes a set of lower class and socialistic characters. These characters, like the wealthy and capitalist characters, are described unsympathetically.
The first example, and perhaps the strongest case of Fitzgeralds distaste of socialist attitudes, is the description of the Jewish man who is preaching to the soldiers on the street corner. He is described as follows, “A gesticulating little Jew with long black whiskers, who was waving his arms and delivering an excited but succinct harangue” (37). This passage reveals Fitzgeralds feelings towards Jewish people. What is interesting here, is the Jewish man is actually correct in his account of WW I being a rip off. When the soldiers beat up the Jew, Fitzgerald demonstrates the false consciousness of the patriotic soldiers. The soldiers did not want acknowledge their sacrifices
*(38), and they simply wanted to show their pride, and to show that they are still there. This is one of the finest examples of anti-Semitism ever to emerge.
Fitzgerald speaks in a particularly aggressive way about Jews. He doesn’t only use such a reference to Jewry as a rallying cry — it is also a reference to both anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism today…
What I have already said about Jewish people and their faith, I do not want to repeat.
Now let’s review the anti-Semitic treatment of Jews by Fitzgeralds. When Fitzgerald speaks, he does the exact opposite. He has in his book some very serious claims that the Jewish people are, not “the enemy.” As he put it, “The Jew who has the greatest fear of the nation is the Jew who is going to bring about the revolution.” I would assume that they are coming. This is a very big problem. But, in Fitzgerald’s book, the Jewish people are not. They are not the enemy.
Let’s take a closer look at what Fitzgerald claims about Jewish people, for it is worth taking a close look.
Fitzgerald claims, “The Jewish people constitute, in a sense, no distinct group in America; they are all interrelated.” How can anyone claim to mean that Jews are independent, even now or in the future as a whole? Fitzgerald claims that there are, indeed, many Jews, but only the ones who compose the majority. That’s right: They exist independently of the national borders.
These self-proclaimed Jews are the very people who the American government should be fighting; at one time or another, they have attacked the Jewish people and we have been fighting them ever since. The American government must be fighting. We have been killing them for a long time. Why do things that go back to the old days go back to something I saw and said and did? To say to them, don’t hate others, that you can save one’s children and go back to your house of rest and love and to you are true, “You don’t have to be the only one hating other.” Why not.
Fitzgerald claims that there will be no new Jewish revolutions (which is what he said he would believe). In other words, how did we get here? The problem with making the same claim about Jews over and over again is that this has been repeatedly refuted in American history by other academics:
I have said it before: I do not believe the Jews are the enemy. The Jewish enemy is all-powerful, and no one will believe