What are some ideas for thesis statements that are arguable in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby?

Of the many fascinating questions that come to mind regarding The Great Gatsby, one of the most central questions is whether or not Gatsby is "good." 

Is Jay Gatsby a good person because he believes in himself, stands faithful to his dreams, seems to believe in love, remains behind to protect Daisy when she has already abandoned him, and acts kindly toward Nick most of the time? Do these positive qualities tip the balance and outweigh his criminal pursuits (as a bootlegger), his profound and pervasive tendency toward deceit, and his willingness to ruin a marriage (wherein there is a child involved)?

Gatsby is enigmatic — and not just as a mystery for Nick to solve. He is a complex figure, combining qualities of immorality with those of personal strength and integrity. Nick suggests that Gatsby is "worth the whole damn bunch put together" and in saying this invites us to contrast Gatsby's virtues to the moral corruption and flaws of Daisy, Tom, and Jordan. Gatsby is not without his own flaws, however, and Nick lets us know this in the opening pages of the novel. Thus, the issue of Gatsby's relative goodness is a debatable, interesting, and central question in the text.

Another question that arises in the novel concerns the affair between Gatsby and Daisy. Should we see this affair as a true romance in the sense that it is a sincere relationship predicated on feelings of love and affection? Or is the relationship perhaps too fraught and freighted with abstraction? Is Gatsby interested in Daisy as an individual or interested in what she represents?

Gatsby acknowledges that Daisy represents wealth to him, at one point saying, "Her voice is full of money," and thereby identifying her voice as part of a personification of financial bounty.  

Gatsby was overwhelmingly aware of the youth and mystery that wealth imprisons and preserves, of the freshness of many clothes, and of Daisy, gleaming like silver, safe and proud above the hot struggles of the poor.

Wealth is only a part of Gatsby's personal vision, but it is an important part. In wooing Daisy, we might ask if Gatsby is seeking love or perhaps a more categorical or material achievement. 

Alternatively, we might wonder if Daisy represents the past and so, in marrying Daisy, Gatsby is seeking an achievement of redemption of a promise he felt was made in the past. In other words, Daisy might not be an individual for Gatsby, but rather a sign of his failure and his means of correcting that failure. She may be a way for him to finally and completely redefine his past so that it becomes, retroactively, the perfection of his dreams. 

Daisy's motives are also questionable. She may be simply having a dalliance with Gatsby. When pressed to break with Tom, she refuses. She also has potential motivations to get revenge on Tom for his own cheating.

From both sides, then, the motives of Gatsby and Daisy's affair are open to debate. Is it for love that they come together, for a mutual willingness to revive and redeem the past? Or are they working out their own agendas and not actually pursuing a true romance?

We can also debate Nick's performance of identity and his self-proclamations in the novel. He claims to refrain from judgment and, in the end, finds a way to resist condemning Gatsby. Yet, Nick also judges Tom and Gatsby consistently (and often harshly) throughout the narrative. Nick's moral standing ends up being almost as fuzzy as Gatsby's. 

As a result, when Nick seems to side with Gatsby in the end we might wonder if he is also letting himself get away with something. We have seen Nick go along with so much in the novel — acting as liaison to Tom's affair with Myrtle and acting as liaison to Daisy's affair with Gatsby. Readers might find reason to start judging Nick if he did not make his final commentary on Gatsby with the poetic generosity of spirit that he ultimately does.  

How complicit is Nick in the deceptions and the moral quagmires that appear throughout the novel? How honest is Nick, really? Is he telling the truth about himself? If he is being dishonest, is he fundamentally linked to our questions about Gatsby's potential to be dishonest and good at the same time?

Other points of argument could include:

• Is Wilson's act of murder justified (in some way, since Gatsby was far from innocent vis a vis the circle of affairs that led to Myrtle's death)? Would it be potentially more or less justified if Tom were killed instead of Gatsby? 


• Is Daisy best seen as a victim, struggling to attain some modicum of power over her own life? 


• Is Nick drawn to Jordan because of her tendency to cheat, lie, and gossip? 


• Is it wealth that corrupts people in the novel or is it instead a deeper character flaw that allows people to become corrupted by wealth? If so, what is it in Daisy and Tom that allows corruption and what is it about Gatsby that resists?


• Is Gatsby actually morally corrupt? 

If you pose an answer to any of these questions or take a side on any of these issues, you will have a thesis argument on a debatable issue in The Great Gatsby.