Traditionally, when writing a novel about class disparities, it is common for an author to criticise the wealthy's ability to block the poorer classes from economically advancing themselves. So it is unusual when an author aims to do the opposite: emphasize how those with a poor or middle class background fall short themselves when attempting to reach the top of the social pyramid. In The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald blames the lower classes for their inability to ascend the social ladder, with Myrtle and Gatsby as case studies, by showing that the lower classes not only allow themselves to be exploited by the established wealthy, but ultimately destroy each other.

In order to understand Fitzgerald's perspectives in his writing, it is first important to keep his personal experiences in the back of your mind. Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald was born to a relatively poor lineage and had to rely on his own work in order to find any level of success. He was born from an alcoholic father who signaled the self-loathing and depression that Francis would suffer through his entire life. After he published This Side of Paradise in 1920, Fitzgerald was able to maintain an extravagant persona for most of the 1920s (History.com). His lifestyle up to the publication of The Great Gatsby sounds familiar, and that is because it mirrors Gatsby's new rich lifestyle. Fitzgerald's background actually makes a lot of sense considering the novel's plot, and it allows him to scrutinize and pick apart the actions of both the poor and the new rich.

From the very beginning of Gatsby's journey to become wealthy and powerful, he lets himself be scammed out of money by the established wealthy, the prime example being his journey with Dan Cody, a wealthy copper businessman. Cody allowed the young Gatsby to work with him on his yacht for five long years, and when Cody died, Gatsby was meant to be left $25,000 in inheritance. However, through mechanisms in inheritance law, one of Cody's mistresses was able to collect it instead. Even though Gatsby is left with nothing in inheritance, despite Dan Cody's dying wishes, he is not described as being cheated by an established and powerful person. Instead, Fitzgerald writes: “[Gatsby] never understood the legal device that was used against him” (Fitzgerald 107). The blame is placed not on the establishment, but on Gatsby himself for not understanding why money is being stolen from him. Gatsby is framed by Fitzgerald not as a victim, but as someone who lets himself be exploited; Gatsby lets himself be used and cheated as the price for mixing with the upper class.

Similar to Gatsby's life before he becomes wealthy, Myrtle yearns to escape her dreary life in the Valley of Ashes, to elevate herself from her current social status, and she sees a path to this through Tom. She stays with Tom, even though it's clear that Tom only sees Myrtle as an object for sex, and he would never leave Daisy for his mistress. Fitzgerald makes it very clear that Myrtle will never enter Tom's world when she is assaulted for even mentioning Daisy, the woman who ‘actually’ belongs in the upper class. Fitzgerald illustrates, “‘Daisy! Daisy! Daisy!’ shouted Mrs. Wilson. ‘I'll say it whenever I want to! Daisy! Dai-’ Making a short deft movement, Tom Buchanan broke her nose with his open hand” (Fitzgerald 41). Myrtle is willing to let herself be mistreated, even physically abused, in order to have a chance, however small, at elevating herself to a higher social status. Fitzgerald portrays Myrtle as a pathetic social climber, instead of a woman victimized by an abusive philanderer.

Even more extreme than allowing themselves to be exploited, the main lower class characters, who strive to be included in the upper class, ultimately destroy each other. In her last effort to escape her actual husband, Myrtle runs out to the yellow car, which she believes is driven by Tom. It could even be seen as a punishment for her efforts to escape the confines of her social role that she is killed instantly by Daisy's reckless driving. Gatsby does not stop the car at the crime scene, and actually plans to own up to a crime he did not commit, all to protect Daisy. Gatsby allows Daisy to use him, and he buys into the idea that she is entitled to be protected. After Nick asked if Daisy was driving, Gatsby replied, “Yes… but of course, I'll say I was” (Fitzgerald 151). But due to Gatsby's unwillingness to tell the truth at Daisy's expense, Tom is able to convince Mr. Wilson that it is Gatsby who purposefully murders Myrtle. As a result of Gatsby's willingness to protect the established rich, in this case personified by Daisy, all three prominent lower class characters end up dead: Myrtle, George Wilson, and Gatsby.

Although this angle—that the lower classes create their own troubles—is a useful one to peek through when examining Fitzgerald's intentions, at the heart of it all, Gatsby is only an indirect cause of his eventual demise. Tom, who embodies of the old rich of East Egg, manipulates George Wilson in order to get Gatsby out of his personal life. Tom's actions are symbolic for a greater notion of the rich manipulating the lower classes to fight each other. This concept was coined false consciousness by Marxist thinker György Lukács in his book History and Class Consciousness, published in 1925, just two years before the publication of The Great Gatsby. False consciousness refers to being unaware of your socioeconomic position and the systemic unfairness in the capitalist economy. Often this condition is created by the rich themselves, through propaganda and political talking points, for their self-advancement.

In the novel, Mr. Wilson is literally tricked into killing himself and Gatsby, by a wealthy man looking to protect his wife from rightful punishment. It is debatable whether Tom knows that Daisy was actually the one driving the car, but this is irrelevant for if he doesn't know, it is because Daisy looked to avoid punishment herself, and so Tom acts as a tool for Daisy's desires. False consciousness is not inherently a concept that puts any group at fault but it can be used to blame either the rich, for implementing the manipulation, or the lower classes, for allowing themselves to be manipulated. However, Fitzgerald attempts to excuse Tom and Daisy's behavior through Nick's narration in the final chapter. For one, Nick frames this story of not as one of the old rich against the lower classes, but as the East versus West: “I see now that this has been a story of the West, after all- Tom and Gatsby, Daisy and Jordan and I, were all Westerners, and perhaps we possessed some deficiency in common which made us subtly unadaptable to Eastern life” (Fitzgerald 184). This explanation for the novel's conflict was used as opposed to the simpler, and arguably more accurate, explanation that the disastrous ending is a result of inequality of wealth, social status, and opportunity. Nick also takes time to defend Tom for indirectly killing Gatsby by saying, “I saw that what he had done was, to him, entirely justified” (Fitzgerald 187). No such luxury of absolution is provided for Wilson, and in fact, the incident is even described as a “holocaust” (Fitzgerald 170).

In The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald blames the lower classes for their inability to ascend the social ladder by showing that the lower classes not only allow themselves to be exploited by the established wealthy, but ultimately destroy each other. Fitzgerald was attempting to make a point about how the lower classes idolize the upper class, and as a result, the lower classes believe, trust, and allow themselves to be exploited by them. Yet in reality, the most wealthy and powerful characters in The Great Gatsby are the most careless, amoral, and self-serving.