How far does the reader sympathise with Sherman McCoy?

Authors Avatar

How far does the reader sympathise with Sherman McCoy?

Sherman McCoy is narcissistic, covetous and adulterous. Yet, as readers, we feel some sort of attraction towards him, and even if we do not condone his lifestyle, we understand it, and we accept his motives, because McCoy, for all his money, is a human being and it is his flaws themselves that fascinate us. After all, it seems a paradox of sorts to describe him as a tragic character and then condemn him, because if all his contemporaries share the same flaws, then there must be something else that sets him apart. Firstly, his self-awareness comes into play: ‘The Master of the Universe was cheap, and he was a liar,’ says Sherman. The fact that he understands his failings is important: it raises the question, if he is aware of his motives, then can he be held any more responsible for his actions than if he was oblivious to his own intentions?

I feel that he still cannot be held liable, as another factor is involved: his environment. In fact, McCoy describes his greed as ‘myocarditis,’ which is a disease, and this image helps us to better understand what drives him onwards. A disease is involuntarily received, destructive and abnormal. In the same way, Sherman’s conscience is being eaten away from the inside, and at Maria’s apartment, inadvertently thinks, ‘His Majesty, the most ancient king, Priapus, Master of the Universe, had no conscience.’ Although once again acknowledging his blemishes, the comment has deeper implications. Yes, Priapus was the Greek God of procreation, but also the God of fertility, and a Pagan figure. This is appropriate, as out of ‘this tidal wave of concupiscence,’ as Sherman describes it, comes a catharsis for Sherman, out of which grows a new man, and, one could say, a new city. In addition, religion has ignored Sherman, and God has left him. His Godless environment is what forces a primitive moral code upon him in ‘the jungle,’ and it is what sets superficial social conventions that Sherman must adhere to, or be shunned. This is clearest when he first sees Maria’s new painting, and says, ‘What a piece of garbage … It was sick … But it gave of the sanctified odor of serious art, and so Sherman hesitated to be candid.’ This pressure from the social order summarizes the general hollowness of not only 1980s New York art, but also culture itself. It is worrying to think that the mechanism for determining the relative worth of art exists totally independently of the art itself. Thus, if we look deeper, perhaps Sherman is the victim even before he ventures into the Bronx.

Join now!

Stylistically Wolfe’s work is full of touches that reveal subtle differences between characters: they are not all the walking, breathing piles of pure sin they appear to be. As Sherman is introduced, the first thing he thinks about is his family. He thinks, ‘But the smile on her [his wife’s] face was obviously genuine, altogether pleasant … a lovely smile, in fact … Still a very good looking woman, my wife … with her fine thin features, her big clear blue eyes … But she’s forty years old! … Not her fault … But not mine either!’ Towards the end, the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay