May 2017, Paper 2 (HL)

Question 3: To what extent do at least two of the works you have studied show that an individual is in control of his or her destiny?

Writers often use their novels to make a point about an individual’s role in society and what happens if they attempt to reject it. Woman at Point Zero, written by Egyptian activist, Nawal El Saadawi, is a classic example of this. The novel follows the story of Firdaus, an intelligent young woman who feels marginalised and exploited by society, and attempts to become a successful prostitute in order to earn the respect and autonomy she feels she deserves. Such ambitions for social climbing are also an important concern in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s popular 1926 novel, The Great Gatsby. Here, the main character, Jay Gatsby, makes a doomed attempt to shape his own destiny by joining New York’s privileged upper class during the period often referred to as the ‘Roaring 20s’. Both works demonstrate that while characters often hold to the perception that they can and have shaped their own destiny, they are ultimately bound by the class position they were born into.

In both works, the primary ambition of the protagonist is to obtain money, in the misguided belief that this will earn them affection and respect. In both novels, the characters are able to earn temporary success. However, for both Firdaus and Gatsby, this is followed by unforeseen fatal failure. In the case of Gatsby, he has been motivated by money and the accumulation of wealth for his entire life. As he achieves more wealth he continues to desire more. Initially, for Gatsby, it was Cody’s yacht that “represented all the glamour in the world”, but as he grew older, his ambitions for more wealth lead him to become a bootlegger, an activity that was criminalised in 1920s America. Even Gatsby’s desire for Daisy is a consequence of her epitomizing wealth. She is described as “the golden girl”, symbolic of her wealth, and she is often described as lying on a sofa, as if somehow raised on a pedestal, and therefore representing a prize, or some other kind of monetary value. Like Gatsby, Firdaus is strongly motivated by money, and appears to be almost addicted to wealth, represented by her first 10 pound note which is treated as something “illicit” by the waiter in the restaurant, who pretends not to look at it. In this experience, Firdaus feels empowered for the first time, and tries to gain more of it.

Unfortunately, money seems to be somewhat illusionary to both characters who eventually find that it cannot actually realise their ambitions. Gatsby, despite immense wealth, never succeeds in joining the upper class, but is instead relegated to the “noveaux-riches” of East Egg. He lives in a “monstrosity” of a house – and “imitation” of a Hotel de Ville in Normandy – covered in a “thin beard of ivy” which barely conceals the fact that the house is in fact brand new. The ivy works as a metaphor for Gatsby’s false upper class credentials; his working class background is almost, but not quite, concealed by his false English speech patterns and greatly embellished backstory of having studied at Oxford University in much the same way that the age of his house is almost – but not quite – hidden by his ivy. The parties that Gatsby regularly holds at his house also appear to be hollow and devoid of true meaning, frequented by drunken strangers who pretend to know each other, engage in brief small talk, and later disperse, without ever knowing the other’s name. Despite Gatsby’s illusion of immense popularity as a result of these parties, only one of his guests (or “friends”, as Gatsby’s father falsely believes them to be) ever turns up for his funeral. This is the ultimate demonstration that, despite his lofty ambitions and apparent success, Gatsby is eventually discarded and forgotten once he no longer has a purpose.

A similar pattern can be seen in Woman at Point Zero, where Firdaus’ apparent success as a prostitute also turns out to be hollow. Whilst Firdaus initially enjoys substantial success, able to turn down customers, charge high fees and pay the police and courts to protect her, she is eventually confronted by a powerful pimp and finds that despite her apparent success, the system is still very much rigged against her. The common theme in both novels is the idea that whilst characters can control their destiny in the short term, they will eventually come unstuck because of already existing social structures that oppose them. It should probably be noted that both Firdaus and Gatsby both come from lower-class families, and had little choice but to try to gain wealth dishonestly. Other characters, such as Wilson in The Great Gatsby, who engage in honest work find themselves perpetually at the bottom of the social hierarchy. There is a second, and crucial, limiting factor that explains Firdaus’ inability to transcend her class background: her gender. Firdaus is a women and is structurally marginalised by her patriarchal society. Towards the conclusion of the novel, when Firdaus is arrested, Firdaus is told that she is a “savage and dangerous woman”, a claim based entirely on the single, unverified account of a male character, and is sentenced to death as a result of this (male) ‘evidence’. In this way, El Saadawi makes the point that as a woman in 20^th century Egyptian society, your fate is out of your hands.

In The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald also uses Gatsby’s demise to deliver a stinging critique on society at that time. It has been widely speculated that Gatsby’s life could represent the death of ‘the American Dream’ – the belief that anyone can achieve anything if they work hard enough. However, Gatsby proves that the only way to achieve this success for the majority of people is to turn to crime or dishonesty. Further challenging the idea that everyone can achieve greatness is the Wilson family, a working class family who struggle to run a garage in the poverty-ridden Valley of the Ashes. For George Wilson, the only way to scrape a living is by serving the upper classes, and ensuring that he never upsets or insults them in order to keep their custom. The Wilson’s difficult existence is also expressed by George’s wife, Myrtle. Myrtle’s name is itself symbolic; she is named after a hardy shrub that can grow anywhere. This contrasts with the delicate, Daisy, who feels the need to be entirely surrounded by the material luxuries of her upper class lifestyle. Myrtle’s attempts to leave her assigned societal role by having an affair with the upper class Tom Buchannan is followed by her untimely death, intended to be seen as a punishment for her attempted social climbing, and sending out a clear message that it would be unwise to follow suit. It is, therefore, ironic that The Great Gatsby propelled its author to the forefront of East Coast America’s upper class at the time of its publication. In this sense, Fitzgerald was able to defy the societal constraints that he wrote about in his novel.

Fitzgerald’s belief that the American Dream and true control over our future is unattainable is reflected in the ending of the novel. Referring to the “orgastic future which recedes year by year before us”, Fitzgerald suggests that the American Dream is increasingly out of reach, followed by the analogy of the human struggle to succeed as being like “boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.” This foregrounds our lack of control and our ultimate conformation to societal expectations, regardless of how hard we try.

Despite short term successes, no character in either novel is in control of their own destiny. Firdaus finds herself limited by her gender and a patriarchal society that is rigged against her. Similarly, the characters in Fitzgerald’s novel are either not able to attempt to improve their lives, or know not to try to. Those who try, like Firdaus, end up dead. Both novels are bleakly pessimistic, and in both novels the author’s seem influenced by their real world context of reception where they regard it as impossible for people to control their destiny in any real sense.