Is Daisy Buchanan ('The Great Gatsby') smarter than people like to believe?

I've been reading 'The Great Gatsby' and despite the general consensus by young readers and film adapation audiences that Daisy is simply a young, immature, ditsy girl, I happen to think that Daisy is smarter, craftier, more opportunistic and socially aware than she is made out to be by audiences.

Daisy is aware of the old money world she belongs in. She is aware that the most 'successful' ladies, in the broadest sense of the word, in her world are ones that remain superficially foolish, objectified and trophy-like. She plays with Gatsby, but knows when to go home back into the protection of her old money inheritor Tom Buchanan. She knows it doesn't take much of an effort for her to regain her husband's fidelity - Myrtle could never have been a replacement for Daisy in Tom's eyes: Daisy is the perfect trophy wife for Tom. Myrtle is only a plaything and a secondary status symbol to Tom, like a concubine, unlike his wife Daisy.

Daisy is also very much like Tom. Again, Gatsby is only a status symbol for Daisy too, a symbol of how desirable she is in the eyes of men. Despite all that Gatsby attains to win Daisy's hand, he can never be a replacement of high-born heir and sporting star Tom.

Daisy and Tom both use people to seal their own status and desirability, and ultimately to prove to each other how they were lucky to have each other. The likes of Gatsby and Myrtle are only tools in their eyes.

I've been reading 'The Great Gatsby' and despite the general consensus by young readers and film adapation audiences that Daisy is simply a young, immature, ditsy girl, I happen to think that Daisy is smarter, craftier, more opportunistic and socially aware than she is made out to be by audiences.

Daisy is aware of the old money world she belongs in. She is aware that the most 'successful' ladies, in the broadest sense of the word, in her world are ones that remain superficially foolish, objectified and trophy-like. She plays with Gatsby, but knows when to go home back into the protection of her old money inheritor Tom Buchanan. She knows it doesn't take much of an effort for her to regain her husband's fidelity - Myrtle could never have been a replacement for Daisy in Tom's eyes: Daisy is the perfect trophy wife for Tom. Myrtle is only a plaything and a secondary status symbol to Tom, like a concubine, unlike his wife Daisy.

Daisy is also very much like Tom. Again, Gatsby is only a status symbol for Daisy too, a symbol of how desirable she is in the eyes of men. Despite all that Gatsby attains to win Daisy's hand, he can never be a replacement of high-born heir and sporting star Tom.

Daisy and Tom both use people to seal their own status and desirability, and ultimately to prove to each other how they were lucky to have each other. The likes of Gatsby and Myrtle are only tools in their eyes.

So yes, I think she is intelligent, and I think that she uses this intelligence to decide to choose money over love.

I think you're projecting a bit there, sorry.
She's a comment on materialistic women at the time by Fitzgerald, as Tom is a comment on rich men or Woflstheim (I think that's the spelling) is a parody of the stereotype of Jews as all criminals.
I think you're reading the book too much like a story and ignoring the broader themes. The book has a large amount of symbolism, such as the colour green or Gatsby's wealth. There wouldn't be included a character that's secretly intelligent as that would be related to the plot, which wasn't too important in the book compared to its importance in most novels.
Daisy must be daft, because that makes Tom malicious and Gatsby a knight in shining armour in Nick's eyes, which he by all means is 'you're better than the damn bunch'.

I think that Daisy is very intelligent. Her comment about wanting her daughter to be a 'beautiful little fool' shows this as she sees that in the world she lives in is a bad place, and so it is better for a girl to be a fool as she wouldn't understand and would be much happier than Daisy is.
Personally, I think Daisy loves Gatsby but whether she does or not, she chooses Tom and his money. This is because she understands that her best chance is with his social status and wealth, and she also knows that Gatsby's criminal behaviour will not give her a good name.
So yes, I think she is intelligent, and I think that she uses this intelligence to decide to choose money over love.

I think you're missing the fact that Gatsby too is rich, more so than Tom I assume. Her choice of Tom I put down to the fact that Gatsby at the end of the novel was in no place to be in a relationship (I won't spoil it obviously) and she doesn't want to be alone, so stays alone.

*old money + status (so not including Gatsby's money, which he achieved through criminal means

Actually, no.

Your interpretation (while valid, if we ignore the 'must') is frankly an overhashed, oversimplified idea I expect GCSE teachers have been drilling into people up and down the country for the last decade.

Sure, maybe Fitzgerald sat down and thought "person A can be a symbol of power, person B can be a symbol of ... etc" and wrote the book like that. Maybe. Characters written by good authors (which Fitzgerald debatedly is) are usually far more complex, however, - like real human beings - with many sides to them which we discover as they interact with other characters.

Why can't Daisy be an intelligent, manipulative woman who plays off gender attitudes (which Fitzgerald highlights through her 'dumb' dialogue to evoke a reaction in the reader)? There is certainly no evidence to disprove this.

The OP hasn't developed their line of argument far enough, but they certainly could fit their interpretation of Daisy to the themes running through the book perfectly if they gave it some time.

If you sat down and thought about it carefully you could find 50+ conflicting interpretations of the significance of 'the colour green' or 'Gatsby's wealth'.

GCSE teachers don't actually teach Great Gatsby (as far as I'm aware).

As someone pointed out the novel is social commentary, it's very likely Fitzgerald did write by making each character a symbol e.g. Wilson is the hard-toiling working-class man who gets done over by the big cats. Gatsby is the icon of the 'lost generation' rolling back into his old country with new ideas etc. In novels like this, the characters don't need deep characterisation as it's all about themes. Other books similar are The Road or Slaugherhouse 5. There are no 'characters' there.

Daisy can't be some secretly intelligent woman as this isn't a story about characters doing the plot. Fitzgerald may have been a hack for 90% of his works but this one is story about themes and ideas, and comments on society and people at the time.

OK then list multiple, well grounded ideas about the colour green, which everyone else agrees is about his desire of Daisy, and by extension the uncertainty of the unseen future- for example the light at the end of Daisy's pier, or the drink they have when she first visits being a green champagne. Colours are an important part of the novel.

I'm not saying it isn't a social commentary, just that while he may have intended it to be about themes, the impact it has had on readers is far greater; the book may have been written in one light but can be viewed in many others (the fact Fitzsgerald may not have intended this is irrelevant and does not make it wrong).
Concerning the colour green, you have highlighted a very good point: everyone will not agree on any one interpretation of its symbolism because everyone views the book differently (whatever you consider it to be, it will be disagreed with by at least one other person).
"Col

Of course it could be interpreted in many ways but that doesn't make those many ways right. I could say it's an allegory for alien invasion, it doesn't make me right. Some books are meant to be interpreted in many ways and some, like this, have an obvious message- how riciculous it is that society has divided the top-tier into 'new' and 'old' wealth.

Not until you provide evidence for it and develop your argument.

There is never a definitive right or wrong answer in English because words are not numbers with a definitive meaning.

The phrase 'It was an interesting night' I just made up (random but go with it).

You could interpret it as just a plain relaxed thing for the narrator (me) to say.

Someone else could say my the lack of elaboration could suggest I was reluctant to consider my feelings from the event of 'last night' and my mood was troubling.

Same words, different meaning.


* Doesn't make them any less right either :P

I disagree that there isn't a right or wrong answer. It was written by a person who was writing it to project or show his own views, therefore if it's written well enough the 'right' reading is the one that correlates with the view expressed.

Some people when reading like to project their own opinions and pretend the text what they want it to mean.

Take your sentence for example. I could never interpret it as 'I am an ice-cream man' and if I did it would be wrong. I'd only be reading it as that because I want an ice cream and I want you to sell it to me, or I want you to be one for another reason.

Readers aren't always right. People are stupid.

Ah now we're getting somewhere. You're talking about the author's view here, or at least the one they are trying to put forward. This is very, very different to what the book may mean when reading it to different people.

I do agree 100% that example of an ice cream man is far fetched, and not the view that I was trying to put forward. However, if that is what you interpret the quote to mean I still don't see it as wrong (I would see it as a dreadful, poorly developed and weird link to make though ).

So could we conclude....

'Fitzgerald is trying to put forward the idea an alien invasion is about to occur through his use of the colour green throughout the novel' is wrong

But!...

'One interpretation that could be made of the use of the colour green in the Great Gatsby is a sense of dehumanisation of certain moments in the novel - this is paralled in other novels through the use of green as a colour for aliens during their invasion of earth'

is a awful, inaccurate, far fetched U grade opinion, but nevertheless not something you could say is wrong?

I do see your points btw